Delhi District Court
Unknown vs Mohd. Yamin on 15 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAN MOHAN SHARMA
ADITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 1, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
Ex. No. 73/2010
15.03.2013
Smt. Saira ...Plaintiff
Versus
Mohd. Yamin ....Defendant
ORDER: The suit no. 261/2004 has been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2010 in the following terms: "By separate judgment announced in the open court today, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with the observations that plaintiff is owner of the suit property bearing plot no. 30, measuring area 47 sq. yds., part of Khasra no. 311, situated in Village Nasir Pur, New Delhi, also Abadi known as Indra Park, BlockJ, New Delhi having Municipal Corporation No. RZ26/P30A, Gali No. 10E, Indra Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi45. Plaintiff is also entitled for relief of possession for the suit property bearing plot no. 30 measuring area 47 sq. yds., part of Khasra no.
Ex. No. 73/2010 (Smt. Saira Vs. Mohd. Yamin) Page 1 of 5311, situated in village Nasir Pur, New Delhi and also Abadi known as Indra Park, BlockJ, New Delhi also having Municipal Corporation No. RZ26/P30A, Gali No. 10E, Indra Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi45. Plaintiff is also entitled for relief of permanent injunction to the effect that till the possession of the suit property is given to the plaintiff by the defendant, the defendant, his agents, his associates, legal heirs, assignees, representatives, etc. are restrained to create any third party interest in the suit property. Plaintiff is also entitled to mesne profits @ Rs. 1,500/ p.m. from the date of filing of the suit till the possession be given by the defendant to the plaintiff. However, if any rent or amount has been paid by the defendant for this period during the pendency of the suit after date of filing of the suit then the said amount shall be adjusted. Plaintiff is also entitled for proportionate cost. However, the plaint shows that the plaintiff has not paid the court fees for the relief of mesne profits. Plaintiff is directed to pay the court fees for the relief of mesne profits in accordance with the law. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly thereafter. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities"
2. The present objections have been filed by objectors namely S/Sh. Mohd. Imran Hussain and Irfan Hussain U/o 21 Rule 58 CPC. Ex. No. 73/2010 (Smt. Saira Vs. Mohd. Yamin) Page 2 of 5
3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties.
4. The objectors are Mohd. Imran Hussain and Irfan Hussain, who are claiming to be the sons of Mohd. Abrar Hussain, stated to be deceased now.
5. The case of the Objectors is that their father had purchased a plot measuring 47 sq. yds out of Khasra no. 311 situated at Village Nasipur in the colony known as Indra Park, JBlock from one Sh. Nafe Singh S/o Sh. Nahar Singh on 26.05.1982 for valuable consideration of Rs. 6,580/ and various documents like GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will and Receipt have been executed. The vendor delivered the vacant possession to the to the vendee. The vendee raised construction in the plot. The new number of the property is RZ26/P, 30A, Gali No. 10E, Indra Park, Palam Colony, New Delhi. The property devolved upon the Objectors by virtue of a Will of their father as executed on 12.08.2002. Their father died on 13.12.2006 and thus the Objectors became the owners of the property. They came to know that one Sh. Mohd. Ibrahim, an acquaintance of their father, who was authorized to look after the plot, had sold the same to the DH vide registered documents. The said act on his part is Ex. No. 73/2010 (Smt. Saira Vs. Mohd. Yamin) Page 3 of 5 unauthorized and without any sanction in law. Thus, the judgment and decree passed in favour of DH is null and void and liable to be set aside.
6. The objections have been vehemently opposed by the DH stating that they are not valid. The documents are forged and fabricated. The document as relied upon by Objectors did not create any title in favour of their father.
7. Ld. counsel for Objectors has relied upon K. Venkarayappa Vs. Ellen Industries Combatore and others, AIR 1985 AP 261, stating that the matter compulsorily requires leading of evidence.
8. I have considered the submissions.
9. The Objectors have relied upon photocopies of certain documents which are GPA dated 26.05.1982, an Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will etc. of the even date. The sale consideration has been shown as Rs. 6,580/. The documents have been attested by Notary Public and on the face of it they are not registered, though they are compulsory registrable as creating a title in an immovable property of value of above Rs. 100/.
10. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj Ex. No. 73/2010 (Smt. Saira Vs. Mohd. Yamin) Page 4 of 5 Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana' (SLP(C) no. 13917 of 2009 date of decision 11.10.2011, these documents have not been treated akin to a sale deed or a transaction of sale. Though, in the said judgment past transactions on the basis of such documents have not been disturbed, however, in the instant case the fact remains that the documents can not be relied upon for want of registration. These documents are hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act. Thus, even taking the case of the Objectors at face value, they did not pass test of law as requisite. Thus even if the defence of DH is ignored and the pleas and documents of the Objectors are considered as it is, on the face of it no valid title could be propagated through these documents. If the case is put to trial, it would be only an academic exercise and would put an avoidable burden on the resources of the exchequer.
11. The Objectors can not get a better title than their predecessor in interest had.
12. Hence, the objections are dismissed for the aforesaid reasons. Announced in the Open Court today on this 15th day of March 2013 (MAN MOHAN SHARMA) ADJ (Central)01, Delhi Ex. No. 73/2010 (Smt. Saira Vs. Mohd. Yamin) Page 5 of 5