Delhi District Court
Morveena Massey vs Panchdeep Coop. G.H. Society Ltd on 21 January, 2026
- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided over by Sh. Lalit Kumar, DJS)
SUIT No. 607958/2016
CNR No. DLWT03-000216-2016
In The Matter Between:
Ms. Morveena Massey,
D/o Late Yusuf Massey,
R/o. Flat No.85, Panchdeep Apartments,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi
..........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Panchdeep Coop. G.H. Society Ltd.
Through its Secretary/President
34-36, Panchdeep Apartments,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi
.....................DEFENDANT
Suit filed on :- 06.02.2016
Digitally
Judgment Reserved on :- 19.11.2025
signed by
Lalit
Lalit
Date of decision :- 21.01.2026
Kumar
Kumar Date:
2026.01.21
16:43:03
+0530
Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 1/25
G.H. Society Ltd.
- 2 -
Decision :- DISMISSED
SUIT FOR DECLARATION & PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is crucial to concisely state the pleadings in the present suit.
PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of an ex-parte arbitration award dated 14.04.2004, allegedly obtained by the defendant society against the plaintiff's late mother, Mrs. Y. Massey, in a fraudulent and illegal manner.
2. It is averred that the plaintiff's mother was a member of the defendant cooperative group housing society and was duly allotted Flat No. 85. According to the plaintiff, the entire cost of the flat was fully paid by her mother, who also regularly paid all maintenance and service charges as demanded by the defendant society. The plaintiff's mother expired on 25.12.2011.
3. It is averred that after the death of her mother, the plaintiff applied for substitution of her name as a member of the Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar society. In response, the defendant society, for the first time, Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 16:43:09 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 2/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 3 -
raised a demand of Rs. 3,69,533/- against the mother of plaintiff vide letter dated 30.09.2012, alleging outstanding dues and also referring to some loan related liability allegedly connected with DCHFC. The plaintiff disputed these claims, asserting that no loan had ever been taken by her mother from DCHFC and that all dues stood paid. It is averred that despite repeated written requests and reminders, the defendant failed to supply any documents or details supporting the alleged outstanding amounts.
4. The plaintiff alleges that instead of clarifying the accounts, the defendant society displayed notices on the notice board showing outstanding dues against Flat No. 85. The plaintiff, in good faith, supplied numerous original payment receipts for payment of dues from June, 1998 to December, 2022 to the society on multiple occasions. However, instead of issuing a No Dues Certificate and mutation letter, the society continued to raise arbitrary demands, including a demand of Rs. 1,27,000/- for substitution of membership, which the plaintiff denied as illegal.
5. It is further averred that in December 2014, the plaintiff came to know that recovery proceedings had been initiated against her flat on the basis of an arbitration award. She obtained certified copies of the arbitration proceedings and award on 30.12.2014, whereupon she discovered that an ex-parte award dated 14.04.2004 had been passed against her mother.
6. The plaintiff alleges that the arbitration award was obtained by the then office-bearers of the defendant society by forgery, Digitally signed by fabrication of documents, and fraud. It is specifically Lalit Lalit Kumar pleaded that:
Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 16:43:16 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 3/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 4 -
i. No notice of arbitration was ever served upon the plaintiff's mother.
ii. The acknowledgment card and signatures purportedly showing service and appearance of her mother before the arbitrator are forged. iii. The arbitration proceedings dated 10.03.2004 falsely record the presence and signatures of the plaintiff's mother. It is specifically pleaded that the signatures in the name of mother of plaintiff as made at left side of the order sheet are forged, because the mother of the plaintiff never signed as "Mrs. Y. Massey". According to the plaintiff, these acts render the arbitration proceedings and the resultant award void ab initio.
7. The plaintiff challenged the award before the DCT, but the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the Hon'ble High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble High Court, by order dated 20.01.2016, granted liberty to the plaintiff to challenge the documents and the award before the civil court, observing that issues of forgery and genuineness of documents could only be adjudicated in a civil trial.
8. It is averred that the ex-parte arbitration award was passed on the basis of documents filed by the defendant. The claim made by defendant is stated to be vague and evasive alleging that no specific amount under any head was claimed. It is averred that the total amount outstanding as claimed was Rs. 1,12,812/-, wherein the interest amount and penal interest was Digitally Rs. 74,105/- and the principal outstanding amount was Rs. signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 16:43:21 +0530 38,707/- only.
Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 4/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 5 -
9. Further, the plaintiff has assailed each component of the alleged outstanding dues, contending that:
i. The principal amount claimed was either already paid or barred by limitation.
ii. Many heads of claim were never demanded earlier and were arbitrarily introduced.
iii. Claims relating to construction cost, development charges, electricity, water, maintenance, and other charges are false, unsupported by documents, and time- barred.
iv. The interest and penal interest claimed at 21% per annum are illegal, contrary to the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, and unsupported by any resolution of the general body.
v. It is pleaded that the entire outstanding amount shown in the award is predominantly interest, which is unlawful and unenforceable.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the plaintiff seeks:
A. A decree of declaration declaring the documents forming the basis of the ex-parte award dated 14.04.2004, including the claims and interest demands, as null and void.
B. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant society from enforcing the said award or taking any coercive action against the plaintiff or her flat.
Digitally signed by Lalit PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.01.21 16:43:26 +0530
11. The defendant society filed its written statement contesting the suit in its entirety and seeking dismissal with costs. The Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 5/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 6 -
defence rests primarily on statutory bar of jurisdiction, finality of arbitral proceedings, and denial of allegations of fraud and forgery.
12. It is contended that the suit is barred by law under Section 132 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, as disputes between a cooperative society and its members or persons claiming through them fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of authorities under the Act. It is pleaded that such disputes must be adjudicated under Sections 70 and 71 of the Act and cannot be entertained by a civil court. The defendant asserts that the present suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as being barred by statute.
13. It is further pleaded that the arbitral award has already attained finality, having been affirmed by the statutory framework, the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, and the High Court, and therefore cannot be reopened before a civil court except to the limited extent permitted by law.
14.The defendant admits that the plaintiff's mother was a member of the society and was allotted the flat, but denies that she had cleared all dues. It is contended that the plaintiff's mother took possession of the flat in 1989 and thereafter became a chronic defaulter, having failed to pay maintenance charges, ground rent, water charges, administrative expenses, development charges, and other dues for long periods. Due to persistent defaults, the society initiated arbitration proceedings in 2003 under the then applicable Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972; notices of Digitally signed by arbitration were duly served upon the plaintiff's mother, who Lalit Lalit Kumar appeared before the arbitrator on 10.03.2004, acknowledged Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 16:43:31 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 6/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 7 -
the demand note, and thereafter chose not to contest the proceedings. As a result, an ex-parte award dated 14.04.2004 was validly passed against the mother of plaintiff and duly communicated to the parties.
15. The defendant specifically denies allegations of fraud, forgery, or fabrication of documents. It is asserted that the acknowledgment card and order sheet signatures relied upon by the society are genuine; that the plaintiff has falsely alleged forgery to evade liability under the award; that the signatures disputed by the plaintiff match those appearing on the will of the plaintiff's mother, which the plaintiff allegedly suppressed in part before the Court. The defendant further pleads that despite receipt of the award, the plaintiff's mother neither paid the awarded amount nor challenged the award during her lifetime.
16. It is further contended that after the death of the plaintiff's mother, the plaintiff approached the society for mutation. The society demanded payment of outstanding dues amounting to approximately Rs. 3,69,533/-. The defendant asserts that all representations made by the plaintiff were duly replied to and that the receipts produced by the plaintiff had already been considered during arbitration. It is further submitted that the plaintiff's appeal before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal was dismissed as time-barred; that the writ petition filed before the High Court was also dismissed, with the High Court holding that the liabilities had crystallized by virtue of the award and granting only limited liberty to seek declaration Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar regarding disputed signatures. It is averred that recovery Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 proceedings were thereafter lawfully initiated against the flat 16:43:35 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 7/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 8 -
occupied by the plaintiff.
17. The defendant has categorically denied the allegations of plaintiff that all dues were paid, the claims were time-barred, interest was illegally charged, the demands were arbitrary or unsupported by documents, or that the award was void or obtained by fraud.
18. It is consistently pleaded that the merits of the arbitral award, calculation of dues, and legality of interest cannot be re-agitated before the civil court, as these issues stand concluded.
19. On the above grounds, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit with heavy costs, contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to any declaration or injunction and that the suit is an abuse of process of law.
ISSUES
20. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, following issues were framed on 18.02.2019:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
21. Plaintiff appeared as sole witness, PW-1. Her evidence affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A) reproduced the contents of plaint and relied on following documents:
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Identification mark Description of document Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 Ex.PW1/1 Copy of letter dated 30.09.2012 16:43:41 +0530 (OSR) Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 8/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 9 -
Ex.PW1/2 Copy of demand notice dated 30.09.2012 (OSR) Ex.PW1/3 (colly) Copy of letter dated 07.11.2012 (OSR) Ex. PW1/4 Copy of letter 18.12.2012 (OSR) Ex.PW1/5 Copy of letter dated 27.07.2013 (OSR) Ex.PW1/6 Copy of letter dated 28.12.2013 (OSR) Ex.PW1/7 (colly) Certified copy of arbitration proceedings dated 10.03.2004 (OSR) Mark X Certified copy of order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
22. In cross-examination, plaintiff/PW-1 stated that her mother was allotted the flat in 1989; she herself resided in the flat from 1989 to 1994, and again from 1998 onwards along with her mother and brothers; she had full knowledge of the issues of the society pertaining to the flat. She further admitted that present case essentially pertains to the alleged fabrication of her mother's signatures on the acknowledgment card dated 23.02.2004 and on the arbitration proceedings dated 10.03.2004; and stated that initially, the dispute was regarding the wrong demand raised by the society, and the issue of forgery arose later. When questioned about proof of forgery, PW-1 stated that she did not remember filing any document, except the Will of her mother, to show that the signatures on the arbitration record were fabricated. She further volunteered that she did not think she had filed any such document.
23. PW-1 was shown the Will dated 05.03.2009, consisting of four pages, which was marked as Mark PW-1/D-1. She Digitally identified the Will as that of her mother and identified signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 16:43:47 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 9/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 10 -
signatures at points A, B, C, D and E. However, she stated that the signatures at points D and E did not appear to be those of her mother. She admitted that the said Will was supplied by her to the defendant society after her mother's death; and the Will also bequeathed liabilities of the flat to her.
24. PW-1 further stated that she did not know whether her mother had submitted documents to the society at the time of applying for membership, though she conceded that her mother might have done so. PW-1 was then shown the following documents executed by her mother:
i. affidavit dated 11.05.1988 - Ex. PW-1/D2; ii. agreement dated 07.06.1987 - Ex. PW-1/D3; iii. possession certificate dated 27.04.1989 - Ex. PW-
1/D4.
PW-1 admitted and identified her mother's signatures at point A on all these documents.
25. PW-1 further admitted that her mother had a bank account and was a government servant; that her mother did not initiate any litigation against the society during her lifetime; and that the present litigation was initiated by her only after her mother's death.
26. In her cross examination dated 06.09.2023, she further admitted that she filed the present case alleging fabrication of her mother's signatures on Ex. PW-1/7 (colly); that the documents on which forgery is alleged are government records; that those records were not in the custody of the defendant society. When confronted with the suggestion that Digitally signed by Lalit such government records could not have been fabricated by Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.01.21 16:43:52 +0530 the defendant, PW-1 replied, "Anybody can do it." Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 10/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 11 -
27. PW-1 further admitted that she did not file any complaint with any government authority regarding the alleged fabrication of documents; that she did not implead the arbitrator or the Indian Postal Department as parties to the suit.
28. She denied suggestions that the signatures on Ex. PW-1/7 are genuine; that she was aware that her mother was a defaulter; that she falsely alleged forgery to avoid liability inherited under the Will
29. As stated above, plaintiff was the sole witness. In a gist, her evidence consists of her oral assertions alleging forgery of signatures; correspondence exchanged with the defendant society; and admitted documents containing varying forms of her mother's signatures.
30. No independent witness, handwriting expert, postal authority, arbitrator, or official from the Registrar's office was examined to corroborate the allegations of forgery or non-service of notice.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
31. On 28.11.2024, the defendant was directed by the learned predecessor of this Court to produce 'register of minutes of managing committee and general body meeting'. Said documents were not produced by the defendant despite giving time and direction. It was clarified that failing production of such documents, the Defendant's Evidence (DE) would be Digitally closed. Consequently, vide order dated 07.08.2025, the DE signed by Lalit Lalit was closed. Thus, no evidence was led by the defendant. Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.01.21 16:43:56 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 11/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 12 -
ANALYSIS
32. Vide its order dated 20.01.2016 (Mark X), the Hon'ble High Court gave liberty to the petitioner (plaintiff herein) to approach Civil court to avail her remedies regarding two points:-
1) whether the documents relied upon by the defendant were genuine, and
2) whether the signatures of the plaintiff's late mother were in fact forged or not.
These are the questions for determination before this court in the present case.
33. In the order dated 20.01.2016, the Hon'ble High Court also observed that the liabilities have crystallised by virtue of the (arbitration) Award. In line with the same observation, it was rightly contended by the defendant in its WS that the ex-parte arbitral award dated 14.04.2004 has already attained finality, and therefore cannot be reopened before a civil court except to the limited extent permitted by law. This court cannot entertain any challenge to the merits of the ex-parte arbitral award dated 14.04.2004. The order of the Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the plaintiff merely granted liberty to approach the civil court for adjudication of disputed documents. Such liberty is procedural and does not dilute the requirement of strict proof, nor does it amount to a finding in favour of the plaintiff or to reopen the merits of the arbitral award. The limited points for determination are related to the documents relied upon by the defendant (before the arbitrator) and the Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar allegation regarding forgery of plaintiff's late mother's Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 signatures.
16:44:02 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 12/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 13 -
34. It is trite that plaintiff's case must stand on its own merits and a plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness or even absence of defence to get a decree in his favour. The defendant did not lead any evidence in the present case. Nevertheless, this Court must examine - whether or not, on the evidence before it, the plaintiff has discharged the legal burden of proof required to obtain the declaratory and injunctive reliefs claimed.
35. It is elementary that the plaintiff, who alleges fraud and forgery and seeks a declaration that an arbitral award is void ab initio, bears the onus of establishing those allegations by clear, cogent and sufficient evidence.
36. The documentary evidences relied upon by the plaintiff (Ex.
PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/7 and Mark X) were not contested by the defendant either in its WS or in cross examination of PW-1. Plaintiff's primary substantive contention is that firstly, there was no outstanding liability of her mother and secondly, the Postal A.D. acknowledgment (dated 23.02.2004) and the order sheet of 10.03.2004 do not bear the genuine signatures of her mother and are forged; on that basis she contends the award of 14.04.2004 is void ab initio. Plaintiff alleges forgery only on the sole ground that the late mother of the plaintiff never signed as "Mrs. Y. Massey".
37. On outstanding liability of plaintiff's late mother -
Plaintiff/PW-1 did not produce any contemporaneous payment records, receipts, bank statements, ledger extracts, or any other primary documents to establish that the alleged dues Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2026.01.21 16:44:09 +0530 had been paid by her mother, or to show that specific heads of Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 13/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 14 -
demand (whether principal or interest) were not chargeable. The documents filed by PW-1 (Ex.PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/6) are correspondence with the defendant society - such correspondence, by itself, does not prove either past payments or discharge of liability. The absence of primary payment evidence is a material lacuna because one of the plaintiff's substantial contentions is that the underlying monetary claims were either paid by her late mother or were time-barred.
37.1. The documentary evidence (Exs. PW1/1-PW1/6) produced by plaintiff does not prove absence of liability of plaintiff's late mother. The documentary evidence only shows a dispute and correspondence between the plaintiff and defendant, but cannot be equated to primary proof of payment or as a conclusive proof that the claimed items were neither chargeable, nor demanded. Mere letters of protest or demand for documents, without corroborative documentary proof (such as payment receipts, etc.), are insufficient to establish non-existence of liability.
38. On forgery -
38.1. Contradictory and multiple admitted signatures - PW-1 admitted that she provided to the society the Will of her mother (Ex. PW1/D1). The 4 pages of Ex. PW1/D1 contains 5 signatures of plaintiff's late mother. PW-1 accepted that the signatures at points A, B and C are Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar different in appearance from signatures at points D and E. Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 16:44:14 +0530 PW-1 did not satisfactorily explain how two distinct sets Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 14/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 15 -
of signatures of her mother appear on the documents supplied by her.
38.1.1. Further, on Ex. PW1/D1, signatures at points A, B, and C show "ymassey" in cursive writing; whereas signatures at point D show "Mrs.ymassey" in cursive and those at point E show all uppercase letters - "MRS.Y.MASSEY".
38.1.2. Separately, PW-1 also accepted the authenticity of the affidavit (Ex. PW-1/D2), agreement dated 07.06.1987 (Ex. PW-1/D3) and possession certificate dated 27.04.1989 (Ex. PW-1/D4), filed by her mother with the defendant society. PW-1 also identified signatures of her late mother on each of these documents. A plain inspection of Ex. PW-1/D2 (signed in uppercase alphabets as "Mrs Y. MASSEY") at two places and Ex. PW-1/D3 & Ex. PW-1/D4 (signed in lowercase cursive alphabets as "ymassey") shows prima facie visual differences among these admitted signatures. These signatures are reproduced from the admitted documents as follows:
TABLE I - Admitted signatures S. No. Admitted document Signature appearing on the exhibit number admitted document Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2026.01.21 16:44:19 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 15/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 16 -
1. Ex. PW1/D1 - Will of plaintiff's mother - at point A
2. Ex. PW1/D1 - Will of plaintiff's mother - at point B
3. Ex. PW1/D1 - Will of plaintiff's mother - at point C
4. Ex. PW1/D1 - Will of plaintiff's mother - at point D
5. Ex. PW1/D1 - Will of plaintiff's mother - at point E
6. Affidavit (Ex. PW-
1/D2) - signatures at two points Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2026.01.21 16:44:24 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 16/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 17 -
7. Agreement dated 07.06.1987 (Ex. PW- i. ii.
1/D3) - signatures on iii. iv.
multiple pages
v. vi.
vii. viii.
8. Possession certificate
dated 27.04.1989
(Ex. PW-1/D4)
38.1.3. From the above table, it can be seen that multiple versions of signature of the deceased mother of plaintiff are on record and admitted by the plaintiff;
the presence of these multiple admitted signature styles was not explained or reconciled by PW-1. Despite the presence of these multiple admitted signatures, the plaintiff failed to explain which of them represented the true, consistent, or standard signature of her mother. In such circumstances, the plaintiff's bare assertion that the signatures on the arbitration and postal record are forged, remains unsubstantiated.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar 38.1.4. Further, it is important to produce the Kumar Date:
disputed signatures as well:
2026.01.21 16:44:28 +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 17/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 18 -
TABLE II - Disputed Signatures S. No. Document Disputed signature
1. Arbitration proceeding dated 10.03.2004 - part of Ex. PW1/7 (colly)
2. Postal acknowledgment card dated - part of Ex. PW1/7 (colly) 38.1.5. It can be clearly seen at serial no. 4, 5 and 6 of above Table I that signatures read "Mrs. Y. Massey". This also renders baseless the sole ground taken by the plaintiff to allege forgery - that her mother never used to sign as "Mrs. Y. Massey" (as shown in Table II) and only used to sign as "ymassey". The admitted signatures reproduced above at serial no. 4, 5 and 6 clearly show that late mother of plaintiff also used to add "Mrs." as a prefix to her name and used to sign as "Mrs. Y. MASSEY".
38.2. Absence of forensic/handwriting expert evidence -
PW-1 led no handwriting expert or forensic examiner's Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar evidence to compare the admitted signatures of the mother Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 16:44:32 +0530 (on Ex. PW-1/D1 to Ex. PW-1/D4) with the disputed Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 18/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 19 -
signatures on the A.D. card and the order sheet (Ex. PW1/7). As admitted by PW-1 in her cross examination, the AD Card and arbitration proceedings are government documents, beyond the control of defendant. The allegation of forgery cannot be established without producing expert comparison of disputed and admitted signatures. The absence of any scientific or expert evidence on signature comparison is a significant and material deficiency in plaintiff's case. Plain assertion by a lay witness that a signature is not genuine -- without expert corroboration where admitted signature samples are available -- is grossly inadequate to establish forgery.
38.2.1. Though, S.73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the Court to compare signatures, such power is discretionary and must be exercised with circumspection.1 This case did not present sufficient grounds for invoking such discretionary power. Where multiple admitted signature styles exist, judicial comparison without any expert assistance would be unsafe. The Court cannot assume the role of an expert 1 As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State v. Pali Ram, 1979 SCR (1) 931, AIR 1979 SC 14 - "In the matter of comparing the handwriting the judge should not take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the one agrees, with other. A prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert."
Further, in State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100, the Hon'ble Court has observed that "Although section 73 specifically empower the Court to compare the disputed writings with the specimen/admitted writings shown to be genuine, prudence demands that the Court should be extremely Digitally slow in venturing an opinion on the basis of mere comparison, more so, when signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar the quality of evidence in respect of specimen/admitted writings is not of high Kumar Date:
2026.01.21 16:44:38 standard."
+0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 19/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 20 -
when the party bearing the burden has chosen not to adduce scientific evidence.
38.3. No complaint or independent proceeding alleging forgery - PW-1 conceded that she did not file any complaint with police, postal authorities, the Registrar, or any forensic authority in respect of the alleged forgery and fabrication of the arbitration record and postal acknowledgment card. The allegations pertain to fabrication of official or quasi-official records. Thus, plaintiff's failure to pursue and prove any contemporaneous administrative or criminal remedies (or at least to seek expert verification) combined with the absence of any investigation or report weigh against the credibility of her allegation.
38.4. The arbitration record is a government/private registry record and was not kept by the defendant -
PW-1 admitted that the arbitration and postal record is a government record and was not in the custody of the defendant society. The plaintiff's assertion qua forgery that - "anybody can do it" is highly speculative, unsupported and unsubstantiated with evidence. No evidence was offered to show how the defendant could have altered a record which was not in its custody, or by what mechanism the alleged fabrication could have been Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar achieved.
Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 16:44:42 +0530
39. Plaintiff's admissions regarding conduct and delay - PW-1 admitted that during her mother's lifetime no challenge Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 20/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 21 -
to the award was initiated by her mother and that the present litigation was commenced by PW-1 after her mother's death. The award dates from 2004 and the present suit was filed much later in 2016; PW-1's conduct and the long period reduce the probative value of her retrospective allegations. Further, PW-1 accepted that she had knowledge of the society's affairs and had resided in the flat at material times; yet she offered no primary payment records or bank evidence to substantiate her assertion that dues were paid.
40. On interest, limitation and computation of dues - While the plaintiff assailed individual heads of the defendant society's claim (interest rates, particular charges, limitation), she produced no primary records (ledgers, society resolutions, bank statements, receipts, etc.) to show payments made or to prove that specific items or charges were never payable. These matters amount to an indirect attack on the merits of the arbitration award; such an indirect attack could succeed only if the primary contention -- that the award is void for fraud
-- would have been proved. Given that the evidentiary threshold for fraud/forgery has not been met by the plaintiff, the ancillary challenges to computation and interest cannot prevail on the record as it stands.
41.Even though the defendant did not lead any evidence, the plaintiff was required to stand on the strength of her own case. An adverse inference under S.114(g), Indian Evidence Act Digitally signed by against the defendant for non-production of 'register of Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.01.21 16:44:46 minutes of managing committee and general body meeting' +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 21/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 22 -
cannot substitute for proof of plaintiff's entire case, where the foundational burden lies upon the plaintiff. In any case, the plaintiff did not explain how the said register of managing committee and general body meeting was relevant or what exactly the plaintiff intended to prove by seeking production of the same.
42. To sum up the above discussion:-
i. the plaintiff produced no primary documentary proof of payment or discharge of liabilities;
ii. the correspondence filed does not establish absence of liability;
iii. admitted multiple signature styles of the deceased mother appear on documents the plaintiff herself supplied and were not reconciled;
iv. no forensic/handswriting expert evidence was adduced to compare admitted signatures with the disputed signatures;
v. there was no contemporaneous complaint, investigation, or independent corroboration of the alleged forgery.
On these facts this Court is not satisfied that the plaintiff has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the signatures on the A.D. card or the order sheet of arbitration Digitally proceedings are forged or that the documents on the basis signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2026.01.21 16:44:53 of which arbitration award was passed, are nullity. +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 22/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 23 -
43. On a close and critical appraisal of the plaintiff's documentary exhibits and having regard to the plaintiff's admissions and the absence of expert evidence or corroborative proof, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving forgery or fabrication of the arbitration record or postal AD Card. The plaintiff has likewise failed to establish by admissible evidence that the dues in question had been paid or were otherwise not chargeable. For these reasons the plaintiff's primary case -- that the arbitral award is void ab initio for forgery and documents forming basis of arbitration award should be declared null and void and defendant be restrained from enforcement of award -- remains unproved on the evidence before the court.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
44. In view of above discussion and observations, the issues no.1 and 2 framed in the present case are decided in negative. Plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of declaration or permanent injunction against the defendant.
CONCLUSION
45. In view of appreciation and analysis of pleadings and evidence and the issue-wise findings recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the ex-parte arbitration award dated 14.04.2004 was obtained by fraud, forgery, or fabrication of Lalit by Digitally signed Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2026.01.21 16:44:58 documents, or that the said award is void ab initio. +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 23/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 24 -
46. The plaintiff has further failed to establish any legal infirmity in the documents forming the basis of the said arbitral award, or to prove that the alleged dues were either discharged or not legally recoverable.
47. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration sought in the plaint, nor to the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from acting upon or enforcing the arbitral award dated.
RELIEF
48. The suit of the plaintiff is, accordingly, dismissed on merits.
COST
49. The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking to unsettle a statutory arbitral award of long standing on speculative allegations of fraud and forgery and failed to substantiate the same by any cogent, independent, or scientific evidence. The litigation which remained pending for almost 10 years, compelled the defendant to contest proceedings despite the absence of any prima facie proof supporting the plaintiff's claim. The suit, therefore, resulted in avoidable expenditure of judicial time and costs to the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to pay costs of ₹25,000/- to the defendant, which shall be paid within six weeks from the date of the decree.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2026.01.21 16:45:03
50. Decree sheet to be prepared accordingly. +0530 Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 24/25 G.H. Society Ltd.
- 25 -
51. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
Digitally signed(This judgment contains 25 Lalit byDate:Lalit Kumar Kumar 2026.01.21 pages and each page has been 16:45:11 +0530 signed by the undersigned) (LALIT KUMAR) Announced in the open Court Civil Judge-02, West, on 21.01.2026 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Suit No. 607958/2016 Morveena Massey vs. Panchdeep Coop. 25/25 G.H. Society Ltd.