Delhi District Court
Santosh vs Dalel Singh on 27 April, 2026
CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030000452011
CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 (Main Suit)
CNR No. DLWT030000452011
SMT SANTOSH
(Now Deceased through Lrs)
1. Sh. Ramesh Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
2. Sh. Lakhminder Singh
S/o Sh. Ramesh Prakash
3. Ms. Ritu
D/o Sh. Ramesh Prakash
4. Ms. Madhu
D/o Sh. Ramesh Prakash
5. Sh. Ashwani
S/o Ramesh Prakash
6. Sh. Chaman
S/o Sh. Ramesh Prakash.
All R/o
H.No. 944, Pole No. 29
VPO Mundka, Delhi-41
...PLAINTIFFS
Versus
Sh. Dalel Singh Digitally signed
(Now Deceased through LRs) VIVEK
by VIVEK
KUMAR
1. Smt. Gyan Devi KUMAR AGARWAL
Date:
W/o Late Sh. Dalel Singh AGARWAL 2026.04.27
2. Sh. Raj Singh 17:21:12 +0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),
PAGE 1/44 27.04.2026
CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Dalel Singh
3. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Dalel Singh
All R/o:-
H.No. B-130, Swaran Park,
Mundka, Nagloi, New Delhi-41.
...DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 17.09.2011
Date of Decision : 27.04.2026
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,80,000/ AND FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for Possession, Recovery of Arrears of Rent amounting to Rs.1,80,000/ and for Permanent Injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. It is pertinent to mention that the present suit is being decided alongwith the suit filed by the defendant of the present suit against the husband of the plaintiff titled as Dalel VIVEK Singh Vs. Ramesh Prakesh bearing no. CS SCJ 736/14. KUMAR AGARWAL (hereinafter called as counter suit).
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR2. By way of present suit, the plaintiff has sought the AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.27 relief to pass of possession in favour of plaintiff and against 17:21:20 +0530 defendant directing the defendant to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of property i.e. built up property No. B-130, Swarn Park, Village Mundka, Nangloi, Delhi.41 (hereinafter called as suit property). Further plaintiff has sought the relief of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 2/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- being the past arrears w.e.f. 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2011 @ Rs.5000/p.m. in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, along with the damages @ Rs.10,000/- p/m w.e.f.01.08.2011 till handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Further plaintiff has also sought the releif of injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, restraining defendant, his family members, agents, associates, in any manner subletting, assigning or otherwise transferring possession of the suit property and/or creating third party charge, lien or interest in respect of the suit property.
VERSION OF PLAINTIFF:-
3. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the suit property and the defendant is the tenant in suit property w.e.f. 06.06.2006. That the said premises were let out to the defendant by its earlier owner Sh Ramesh Parkash who is the husband of plaintiff, vide rent agreement dt. 06.06.2006 at the rate of Rs.5000/- p.m. exclusive of electricity and water charges. The rent on of the suit premises is payable in advance on the 7th day of each english calendar month as the said premises were let out for residential purposes only and for the period of 11 months only. That the defendant did not vacate the said premise after expiry of 11 months as per agreement dt. 06.06.2006, and is still in continuous possession of same as illegal and unauthorised occupant. That the defendant has notVIVEK KUMAR paid the rent of suit premises w.e.f. 01.08.2008 onwards at the AGARWAL monthly rental of Rs.5000/-p.m. Now a sum Rs.1,80,000/ has Digitally signed fallen due upto 31.07.2011. That the plaintiff served theby VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 3/44 27.04.202617:21:26 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH defendant with a legal notice dt. 31.05.2011 vide registered AD and courier thereby the plaintiff demanded the arrears of rent from defendant and also directed him to vacate the suit premises but the defendant failed to vacate the suit property. Defendant further failed to pay the arrears of rent.
3.1. It is further stated that the plaintiff contacted defendant many times in the past and have requested him to pay arrear of rent and vacate suit premises but defendant on the other hand have neither vacated the premises nor paid the arrears of rent and the contrary have extended the threats that he will hand over the possession of suit property some third party and receive huge amount as premium. That the plaintiff visited premises on dated 31.07.2011 and asked defendant to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent but the defendant quarreled with plaintiff and threatened that he should not visit of the suit property again and further threatened that he will dispose off suit property to some third party. That due to the threats extended by defendant to plaintiff, the plaintiff went to the local police station to lodge report against defendant but the police did not lodge the report and advised the plaintiff that the matter being nature, the civil court law. Hence plaintiff in left with no other alternative but to file this suit.
Proceedings of Courts:
4. It is pertinent to mention here that after issuance of summons, defendant appeared and filed WS and thereafter VIVEK KUMAR replication was filed on behalf of plaintiff. Thereafter, the AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 4/44 27.04.2026 17:21:32 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH defendant had moved an application u/S 151 CPC to file replication to the replication filed by the plaintiff, however the said applcation was dismissed vod. 02.06.2012. Thereafter, defendant moved another application u/O 8 R 9 CPC, which was allowed vod 09.10.2012 and defendant was granted liberty to file additional WS in response to the averments made in the replication. It is further pertinent to mention that the defendant has given a statement on 23.05.2013 that he will not lead any third party interest in the suit property during pendency of the suit and he was also directed by the court to file an affidavit to mention the name of his tenants in possession of the suit property. Said affidavit was filed on 24.05.2013. In view of the statement of defendant and the affidavit filed by him, the application u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC was allowed. It is further pertinent to mention that vod 23.09.2013, both the parties to the suit were directed to file the original documents relied upon by them.
4.1. It is further pertinent to mention that during pendency of the suit plaintiff expired and her LRs were impleaded vod 04.11.2015. It is further pertinent to mention that defendant had moved an application u/S 151 CPC seeking direction to send the document dt. 31.03.2003 to the FSL for their examination, however, said application was disposed by the court vod 31.05.2016 with the liberties to the parties to get documents examined by a private hand writing expert. The defendant moved VIVEK an another application u/S 151 CPC to breing forensic expert, KUMAR however, the said application was also disposed by the Ld. PO of AGARWAL Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 5/44 27.04.2026 Date: 2026.04.27 17:21:37 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH the Court vod. 22.03.2018 with the observations that the signature / thumb impressions over the documents were not in dispute and that the plaintiff had to prove her own case. The defendant further moved an application u/S 114 r/w O 47 R 1 CPC for review of order dt. 22.03.2018, which was also allowed vod. 01.04.2019 and the defendant was granted liberty to press the application for production of hand-writing expert after completion of PE. Thereafter, defendant again moved the application u/S 151 CPC to bring appropriate forensic expert for examination of document 31.03.2003 and rent agreement 06.06.2006, however, said application was disposed off as withdrawn vod. 02.07.2014.
4.2. Again, it is further important to observe that defendant in the present suit also expired during pendency of the suit and the LRs were impleaded vod. 06.10.2016. Again, by order of even date, it was also made clear by the court that the present suit will be taken up with the connected suit bearing no. 736/14 titled as Dalel Singh Vs. Ramesh Prakash, however, present suit being prior in time shall be treated as main suit.
VERSION OF DEFENDANT :-
5. As per the original written statement filed by defendant, in brief the case of defendant is that the preliminary objections are taken that the plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble court with clean hands and has suppressed/concealed the VIVEK true and correct material facts. That there is no cause of action in KUMAR favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and hence the AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 6/44 27.04.2026 17:21:42 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. That defendant had purchased a vacant plot measuring 200 sq. yards situated in kh.no.77/9, (earmarked plot no. B-130) in revenue state of village Mundka, Delhi, a residential colony known Swaran Park on 12.8.1987 from Sh Man Mohan Lal s/o Sh. Ram Dass R/o 14/32, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi who was the G.P.A holder for and on behalf of Shri Bharat Singh s/o late Sh. Gumani, the landlord R/o Village Mundka, Delhi for consideration of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only). That Shri Man Mohan Lal has executed GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit and a receipt of payment of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) duly signed by said Sh. Man Mohan Lal as executant on 12.08.1987 in respect of the sale of the aforesaid plot in favour of the defendant and the documents were notarised. That Sh. Man Mohan Lal had handed over physical, vacant possession of the plot kh.no. 77/9 after execution of the documents on the same day i.e. 12.08.1987 to the defendant and the plot was earmarked as B-130. That the defendant constructed a house with boundary walls on the aforesaid plot comprising three bed-rooms, bath room, toilet facilities and kitchen etc. in the year 1989-90 (single storey). The bricks use in the construction were purchased by the defendant from M/s Rana Bhatta, Qutab Garh, Delhi. That the defendant performed Grah Pravesh ceremony on 16.10.1991 (Wednesday) and the Grah Pravesh ceremony/Havan etc. were videographed /photographed.
VIVEK The function was attended by many relatives and friends. KUMAR AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 7/44 27.04.2026 17:21:47 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH 5.1. It is further stated that the defendant has applied for electricity connection in D.E.S.U office Nazafgarh, New Delhi in the month of January/February, 1993 and had furnished photocopies of the relevant documents including indemnity bond, affidavit, G.P.A. etc. for getting connection in the house B-130. That the defendant applied for ration card for whole of the family which was got issued on 15.06.1994 and again renewed on 14.07.1997 by the Food & Civil Supply Circle Office, Nangloi, Delhi. That the defendant and his family members including the defendant were issued Election identity cards on 03.02.1995 by the office of Election Commission of India. That the marriage ceremony of Rajesh, the elder son of the defendant was solemnized on 29.06.1998 and the marriage cards were got printed at the aforesaid residential address. That the defendant got his motor cycle no. DDX 4062 insured vide policy at the aforesaid address which is dated 09.07.1993. That the name of the defendant and other family members were included/entered in the Electoral Roll of Nangloi Constituency in 1994. That the defendant has retired as Sub-Inspector from Delhi Police on 30.06.2006 and the above residential /permanent address was given in all the documents the time of retirement for the purpose of pension. That the electric connection/the meter was got replaced in the year 2001. That the defendant along with his family members and the family members of his elder son Rajesh @ Raj Singh have been continuously residing in suit property VIVEK since the time of Grah Pravesh in 1991 till date and have KUMAR remained in continuous exclusive physical possession of the AGARWAL Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 8/44 27.04.2026 Date: 2026.04.27 17:21:53 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH same and residing therein. That the defendant has executed G.P.A. and other relevant documents of half of the portion (100 sq.yds.) in favour of his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh in the year 1993. That the defendant is the rightful, legal owner, occupier and in possession of the aforesaid house and the possession/ownership of the house has never been alienated by the defendant, in favour of any one till date. 5.2. It is futher stated that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lacs only) from Shri Ramesh Parkash, the husband of the plaintiff on 07.06.2006 in the presence of the wife and son Raj Singh @ Rajesh of the defendant to meet the contigency/emergent situation in the family. That on 07.06.2006 at the time of advancing loan Shri Ramesh Parkash had taken the G.P.A., Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Will and payment receipt, which were in favour of the defendant and also of his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh as surety/security with the assurance that the same shall be returned to the defendant at the time of the repayment of the loan. That Sh. Ramesh Parkash, the husband of the plaintiff taking undue advantage of the dire need for money of the defendant also compelled the defendant and his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh to sign/thumb mark on a blank/unprinted stamp paper worth Rs.50/- and assured that the blank stamp paper alongwith the other documents G.P.Α. etc. would be returned at the time of repayment of the loan amount to him. That the loan amount was returned/repaid on 12.07.2006 to Sh. Ramesh Parkash by the Digitally signed by defendant after the loan amount was withdrawn by the defendant VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 2026.04.27
17:22:00
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), +0530
PAGE 9/44 27.04.2026
CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH
from his retiral benefits from the bank and it was done in the presence of the wife and son of the defendant. That Ramesh Parkash did not return the documents on the day of repayment of the loan including the blank stamp paper i.e. on 12.07.2006 on the pretext that the same are not readily available and would be returned back in a week or so. That the defendant and his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh had been persistently impressing upon Ramesh Parkash to return the documents and the blank stamp paper but he continued to put off one pretext or the other. That the defendant and his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh again approached Ramesh Parkash on 15.03.2011 and demanded from him with the request to return the G.P.As and other documents including blank stamp paper which he had been dishonestly retaining after the payment of the loan and thereby committed criminal breach of trust as he flately refused to return the same and also reprimanded the defendant.
5.3. It is further submitted that Ramesh Parkash in criminal conspiracy, connivance and collusion with the plaintiff and others have made false, fabricated, fake and forged documents to lay a false claim-by instituting the present suit on the basis of the forged documents including Forged G.P.A. dated 01.05.2008 alleged to have been executed by Ramesh Parkash in favour of his wife Smt. Santosh/plaintiff, falsely claiming himself as the sole owner, occupier and in possession of built up property bearing plot no. B-130, khasra no. 77/9%, situated at SwaranVIVEK Park, Nangloi, Delhi, Deed of will in favour of Smt.KUMAR AGARWAL Santosh/plaintiff dated 01.05.2008, Agreement to sell dated Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 10/44 27.04.202617:22:05 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH 01.05.2008, Affidavit dated 01.05.2008, Possession letter claiming himself as the owner of the house (undated) and Receipt in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac only) attested as a consideration dated 01.05.2008 for sale executed by Ramesh Parkash in favour of his wife/plaintiff.
5.4. It is further submitted that Ramesh Parkash the husband of the plaintiff had also fraudulently and dishonestly made a fake, false, fabricated and forged rent agreement between himself (first party) and the defendant (Dalel Singh second party) by getting typed Rent Agreement on the blank stamp papers on which Ramesh Parkash had obtained the signature/thumb impression of the defendant and his son Raj Singh under compulsion at the time of taking loan. In this fake rent agreement dated 06.06.2006 Ramesh Parkash has claimed himself as the Landlord and defendant/second party/tenant. That he has never been the owner, occupier or in possession of the aforesaid built up property and that the defendant is the absolute lawful owner, occupier and in possession of the said property since 1987. It is apparent on perusal of this fake Rent Agreement by naked eye that the typing words are over-lapping/over-written on the signatures/thumb impressions, on the blank stamp paper on which the signature/thumb impression of defendant and his son were obtained and thus, has illegally misused the same by forging it in the form of a Rent Agreement. That the defendant has filed a complaint to S.H.O. police station Nangloi for the VIVEK commission of the offenses of forgery by making dishonestly and KUMAR AGARWAL fraudulently making false and fabricated documents detailed Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 11/44 27.04.2026 17:22:11 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH above, criminal breach of trust, cheating, use of forged documents in instituting the present false suit and criminal conspiracy hatched by Ramesh Parkash, plaintiff and others, as deception, fraud an has been committed, which is being investigated by the local police. That the sub Registrar/Registrar Punjabi Bagh, Delhi (West Distt.) is being informed in writing for/regarding the cancellation of the documents registered in the said office on the basis of false and deliberate concealment of the averments made in the documents used in this suit. 5.5. In reply on merits, the averments of the preliminary objections are reiterated and all the averment of the plaint are denied.
REPLICATION:-
6. In the replication filed on behalf of plaintiff to the WS of the defendant, all the averments of plaint are reiterated and allegations of WS are denied.
6.1. It is further stated that defendant had sold the suit property to the husband of plaintiff on 31.03.2003 by executing the document including GPA, Agreement to Sell, registered Receipt, Deed of Will and had also handed over the possession to the husband of plaintiff. That thereafter husband of plaintiff executed transferred document in favour of plaintiff on 01.05.2008. It is further submitted that when husband of plaintiff VIVEK was owner of the suit premises on 06.06.2006, defendant have KUMAR AGARWAL become tenant of the plaintiff's husband, vide deed of agreement Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 12/44 27.04.2026 17:22:16 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH dated 6.6.2006 executed between husband of the plaintiff and defendant at the rate of Rs.5000/- p.m. That the tenancy was only for 11 months, when it was created initially on 6.6.2006 and thereafter the tenancy has not been renewed and defendant continued to enjoy the possession of the same and also has stopped paying rent w.e.f.1.8.2008, though he paid rent for two months in the beginning to the plaintiff when plaintiff became owner of suit premises. It is further stated that so far as the loan of Rs. Two lacs on 07.06.2006, taken by defendant from the husband of the plaintiff is concerned, it is denied for want of knowledge, since matter does not pertain to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant is tenant in suit property when same was purchased by plaintiff for valuable consideration.
ADDITIONAL WS:-
7. In the additional WS filed on behalf of defendant, it has been specifically denied that defendant had sold the suit property to the husband of the plaintiff on dated: 31.03.2003 by executing General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, registered Receipt, Deed of Will all dated 31.03.2003 and handed over possession of suit property to the husband of the plaintiff Shri Ramesh Prakash who became owner of the suit premises and the husband of the plaintiff have executed the transfer documents favour of the plaintiff on 01.05.2008 and VIVEK received the consideration and the plaintiff since then is the KUMAR owner of same with valuable consideration. All the other AGARWAL averments made in the replication are further denied and again Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.27 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 17:22:22 +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 13/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH the averments of original WS has been reiterated. 7.1. It is further stated that the defendant received copy of the plaint documents filed by the plaintiff in the present suit that the answering defendant learnt that the said Shri had Ramesh Prakash misused the aforesaid blank signed stamp papers and plain papers and had created documents showing sale of the suit to a rent property him and also agreement with respect to the suit property by forging and fabricating the said papers. On learning about the same the answering defendant has already instituted a civil suit bearing C.S. No.230/2012 against the plaintiff named above and her husband, Shri Ramesh Prakash, seeking a decree of declaration the documents allegedly executed by the answering defendant in favour of the said Shri Ramesh Prakash and the documents allegedly executed by the said Shri Ramesh Prakash transferring the suit property to his wife, the plaintiff named above, as null and void. It is further stated that the answering defendant had neither sold the suit property to the above named Shri Ramesh Prakash on 31.03.2003 or on any other date nor executed has he ever any G.P.A.. Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit, Receipt of document in or any the said other Shri Ramesh Prakash with respect to suit property. It is further submitted that answering defendant has never entered into any rent agreement, much less a Rent Agreement dated 06.06.2006 with the said Shri Ramesh Prakash with respect to suit property at the rate of Rs.5000/- p.m. or any other amount. The answering VIVEK defendant has neither received any money as consideration sale KUMAR from the said Shri Ramesh Prakash nor has the answering AGARWAL Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 14/44 27.04.2026 Date: 2026.04.27 17:22:27 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH defendant ever paid any money as rent either to the said Shri Ramesh Prakash or to the plaintiff named above. 7.2. It is further stated that all the documents dated 31.03.2003 and the allegedly defendant fabricated the documents executed dated 06.06.2006. That the said Shri Ramesh Prakash had no legal right or authority to sell or transfer executed or off the suit dispose property in any manner and as such the plaintiff named the suit property on the basis of any document allegedly by the said Shri Ramesh Prakash in her favour on 01.05.2008.
The above noted suit instituted by the plaintiff named above is liable to be dismissed as being without any cause of action. The plaintiff named above is liable to be prosecuted for making false statement before this Hon'ble Court.
ADDITIONAL REPLICATION
8. In the additional replication filed on behalf of plaintiff to the additional WS of the defendant, all the averments of plaint are reiterated and allegations of WS are denied.
ISSUES :-
9. After pleadings were complete, the issues were framed vide order dated19.05.2014 as follows:-
ISSUE NO. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession as prayed for? OPP ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Digitally recovery of sum as prayed for? OPP VIVEK signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR ISSUE NO. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.27 17:22:33 +0530 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 15/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH damages, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP ISSUE NO. 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP ISSUE NO. 5 Whether the plaintiff has suppressed and concealed material facts ? OPD ISSUE NO. 6 Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF :-
10. In plaintiff evidence, the LR/ husband of plaintiff, namely Sh. Ramesh Prakash examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:-
The site plan of the suit premises is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/1.
The original rent agreement dt. 06.06.2006 is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/2.
The office copy of the legal notice dt. 31.05.2011 is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/3.
The postal receipt for registered letter is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/4.
The copy of A.D. card is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/5. The copy of courier receipt is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/6. The registered G.P.A. dt. 01.05.2008 executed by the deponent in favour of Smt. Santosh is now exhibited as VIVEK Ex.PW1/7. KUMAR AGARWAL The Agreement to Sell dt. 01.05.2008 executed by the Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 16/44 27.04.2026 17:22:41 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH deponent in favour of Smt. Santosh is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/8.
The Affidavit dt. 01.05.2008 executed by the deponent is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/9.
The Possession Letter dt. 01.05.2008 executed by the deponent in favour of Smt. Santosh is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/10.
The Registered Will dt. 01.05.2008 executed by the deponent in favour of Smt. Santosh is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/11. (objection as to the mode of proof). The G.P.A dt. 31.03.2008 executed by the defendant Sh.
Dalel Singh in favour of Deponent is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/12.
The Agreement to Sell dt. 31.03.2003 executed by the defendant Sh. Dalel Singh in favour of Deponent is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/13.
The affidavit dt. 31.03.2003 executed by the defendant Sh.
Dalel Singh is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/14. The receipt dt. 31.03.2003 executed by the defendant Sh.
Dalel Singh is now exhibited as Ex.PW1/15.
10.1. Thereafter, the witness has been cross-examined and in his cross-examination, some documents were taken on record including GPA dt. 12.08.1987 i.e. Ex.PW1/D1, Agreement of Sell dt. 12.08.1987 i.e. Ex.PW1/D2, Affidavit and Receipt both dt. VIVEK KUMAR 12.08.1987 i.e. Ex.PW1/D3 and Ex.PW1/D4, respectively and AGARWAL then PE, stood closed vod 19.01.2026. Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.04.27 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:22:47 +0530 PAGE 17/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT:-
11. In defendant evidence, the LR/Son of defendant namely Sh. Raj Singh @ Rajesh Kumar examined himself as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.DW1/A and relied on the documents which are already exhibited as Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/15, Ex.PW1/D1, Ex.PW1/D2, Ex.PW1/D3, Ex.PW1/D4 and also relied upon the following documents:-
Copy of Invitation Card for 'Grih Pravesh on 16.10.1991 is Ex.DW-1/1 (OSR).
Photocopy of Ration Card No. 632177 is Ex.DW-1/2 (OSR).
Photocopy of the Electoral Card of the family members of deponent's father issued on 15.06.1994 is Ex.DW-1/3 (OSR).
Photocopy of Voter Identity Card of deponent's father issued 03.02.1995 is Ex.DW-1/4 (OSR).
Photocopy of Invitation Card of Deponent's wedding is Ex.DW-1/5 (OSR).
Photocopy of Inspection Report dated 10.02.1993 of D.E.S.U. is Ex.DW-1/6 (OSR).
Photocopy of Receipt dated 11.02.2000 of D.E.S.U. is Ex.DW-1/7 (OSR). VIVEK KUMAR Photocopy of Electricity Bill of March 2001 is Ex.DW-1/8 AGARWAL (OSR).
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 17:22:53 +0530 PAGE 18/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH Original Electricity Bill dated 19.06.2003 is Ex.DW1/9(OSR).
Original Electricity Bill dated 06.10.2003 is Ex.DW-1/10 (OSR).
Original Electricity Bill dated 09.02.2004 is Ex.DW-1/11 (OSR).
Photocopy of Electricity Bill dated 14.10.2011 is Ex.DW1/12 (OSR).
Photocopy of Telephone Bill due on 16.07.1996 is Ex.DW1/13 (OSR).
Photocopy of Telephone Bill due on 08.04.1997 is Ex.DW1/14 (OSR).
Photocopy of Letter dated 05.06.2006 by Indian Overseas Bank is Mark A. Letter receipt dated 07.06.2006 by M/s Akhil Prints to S.H.O. is Mark B. Letter dated 07.06.2006 by deponent is Mark C. Photocopy of Bank passbook of Deponent's in SBI Mundka Branch is Ex.DW-1/18(OSR).
Original complaint dt. 19.12.2011 by Late Dalel Singh to the S.H.O. P.S. Nangloi, duly acknowledged is Ex.DW- 1/19 (OSR).
Original Site Plan is Ex.DW-1/20.
12. Thereafter, the witness has been cross-examined and VIVEK then DE stood closed vod 11.03.2026. KUMAR AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 19/44 27.04.2026 17:22:58 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH FINDINGS:-
13. I have heard the rival arguments advanced by both the ld. Counsel at length in the present suit as well as in the counter suit and have perused the court record including the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff and the judgments relied upon by counsel for defendant.
ISSUE NO. 1:-
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :-
14. It has been argued by ld. Counsel for plaintiff that essentially, the present suit is the suit between the landlord and tenant. That the said relationship has been proved by the plaintiff by way of rent agreement dt. 06.06.2006 i.e. Ex.PW1/2, which has been duly admitted by the defendant / DW1 during his cross- examination, in which he identified his signatures as well as of his father at point A, B, C and D. That said tenancy was duly terminated by way of legal notice i.e. Ex.PW1/3. The service of said notice has been also proved, as it was sent at the same address as of the suit property and it is further supported with the postal receipt Ex.PW1/4 and the AD card i.e. Ex.PW1/5. That address mentioned on the said notice has been admitted as correct address during the cross-examination of DW-1. That the VIVEK basic requirements in such a suit against the tenant are fulfilled KUMAR AGARWAL and the plaintiff/landlord is not required to prove her title which Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 20/44 27.04.2026 17:23:03 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH is irrelevant in such suit between the landlord and the tenant as the tenant is estopped from questioning landlord's title under section 116 of Evidence Act.
15. It has been further argued that defendant had taken many contradictory stands in the WS regarding the alleged loan taken by the defendant on 07.06.2006, about the alleged repayment of the said loan, not returning of the original property papers to the defendants. That in the evidence affidavit, a new story was coined regarding the payment of interest amount of Rs.50,000/- on the said borrowed amount for the period of one month. That no prudent person would agree to pay interest of Rs.50,000/-on sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the period of one month. That surprisingly there is no written agreement about borrowing of any sum by Sh. Dalel Singh from Sh.Ramesh Prakash nor there is any document about the same having been returned etc as alleged by the defendant. That the defendant who was serving as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police would have known the consequences of signing the blank papers and blank stamp paper as such would have not signed all papers in blank. That from the year 2006 to 2011, the defendant was not expected to sit mute for these many years without filing even single police complaint or sending any legal notice to Sh.Ramesh Prakash demanding back his original documents pertaining to suit property which would have been very dear to the defendant to have with him at all VIVEK times. That no action was taken on the part of defendant and the KUMAR AGARWAL same has been admitted by the DW-1 in the cross examination.
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 21/44 27.04.2026 17:23:08 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH
16. It is further argued that the DW-1, Sh Raj Singh, the son of the deceased defendant, who allegedly stated that at the time of taking loan he was present and he also signed certain blank papers and blank stamp papers alongwith the signature of his father Sh. Raj Singh, DW-1 said in his cross -examination that he signed only two blank stamp papers and so his father Sh. Dalel Singh whereas there are three stamp papers signed by said Sh. Raj Singh and his father Sh. Dalel Singh i.e (1) G.P.A, (2) Agreement to sell and (3) Affidavit. That if the written statement of the defendant is construed minutely, it would show that one stamp paper alleged to have been signed blank by Sh. Dalel Singh and Sh. Raj Singh.
17. Lastly, it is contended that the defendant has miserably failed to place anything on the record of this Court that he took loan amount from the husband of the plaintiff Sh. Ramesh Prakash and further failed to prove that he returned the same as alleged by him. That the defendant further have failed to prove that he and his son signed the blank stamps papers and other paper at the time of borrowing the loan amount. The defendant is not the ordinary citizen who would act like this, as he has been serving in Delhi Police for several years and retired as Sub-Inspector and it can't be presumed that he took loan of Rs.2 lakhs on interest and paid interest amount of Rs.50,000/- on the said amount for the period of month which is beyond any imagination.
18. The counsel for plaintiff has further relied upon the VIVEK KUMAR judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India titled as Sri Ram AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 22/44 27.04.2026 17:23:14 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH Pasricha Vs. Jagan Nath etc. 1976 RLR 607 and it has submitted that in a suit between landlord and tenant, question of title is irrelevant and tenant is estopped from questioning landlord's title.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :-
19. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties. It is argued that the rent agreement in question is a forged document and mere admission of signature of the defendant on the said document does not prove the said document itself, as the onus was still on the plaintiff only to prove the said document. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of High Court of Delhi titled as Sunil Kumar Jain Vs. Ram Kishan Tokas and Ors 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9146. Again regarding the genuineness of the rent agreement in question i.e. Ex.PW1/2, several questions have been raised on the authenticity and genuineness of the said document. It is argued that as admitted by PW-1 in his cross- examination, the stamp paper of the said document Ex.PW1/2 was brought by Ramesh Prakash himself. Again said document was not notarized. That the signatures of defendant namely Dalel Singh were there on the said document over the typed words and at the same time the signatures of Rajesh @ Raj Singh and his VIVEK thumb impressions were not at proper place. Again, signatures KUMAR AGARWAL and thumb impressions of Rajesh @ Raj Singh were there at the Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.27 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 17:23:21 +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 23/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH similar place in the other documents Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15. Again, the rent agreement in question was bearing a revenue stamp, which is usually not pasted on any rent agrement but only for the purpose of acknowledgement of money. Lastly, it is submitted that said agreement was allegedly bearing signatures of two witnesses, however, plaintiff failed to examine any of those persons.
20. It has been further argued on behalf of defendant that during cross-examination of PW-1, certain documents were put by the defendant as Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D4, which include the GPA pertaining to suit property executed by one Man Mohan Lal in favour of Defendant namely Dalel Singh and Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt executed by Man Mohan Lal in favour of Smt. Gianwati W/o Dalel Singh. From the said documents, it is clear that the previous document of ownership were not executed in favour of Dalel Singh and rather his wife and therefore, Dalel Singh had no right to sell the suit property and consequently the documents Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15 executed by Dalel Singh in favour of husband of plaintiff namely Ramesh Prakash were void documents. Regarding the said documents, attention is also drawn to the document Ex.PW1/14, in which signatures of the defendant are not there at the place of signing for deponent. Attention is also drawn to the cross-examination of PW-1, wherein he failed to explain that how the ownership of the defendant was verified by VIVEK him before purchasing the suit property. It is further submitted KUMAR AGARWAL that defendant was not having any need to take the property on Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 24/44 27.04.2026 17:23:27 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH rent as he was in continuous possession of the suit property. Lastly, it is submitted that it is not the suit simpliciter between landlord and tenant and rather the question of title is involved, as suit was filed by the plaintiff as an owner of the suit property and she has already died.
21. It is further argued that the documents Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15 are GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt and these documents did not confer any title on the husband of plaintiff / PW-1 and therefore, at no point of time, PW-1 was the owner of the suit property and consequently no question arises for any rent agreement. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgements of hon'ble Apex Court title as Suraj Lamp & Industreis Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & anr (2012) 1 SCC 656, Shiv Kumar & Anr Vs. UoI & Ors (2019) 10 SCC 229 and judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Vineeta Through LRs Vs. Jyoti Gupta 2024 Scc Online Del 3774.
22. In rebuttal, it is submitted on behalf of plaintiff that in his WS defendant himself has stated to the owner of the suit property and nothing was mentioned about the ownership of his wife namely Gianwati. Again, said Gianwati was never examined as witness and nothing was deposed by DW-1 about her ownership.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING :-
23. Arguments have been heard at length and before VIVEK going into the merits of the case of plaintiff, I find it pertinent to KUMAR AGARWAL discuss the case of the defendant as stated in the pleadings and Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 25/44 27.04.2026 17:23:33 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH as deposed in the evidence qua the document Ex.PW1/2 i.e. Rent Agreement dt. 06.06.2006 as well as qua the documents Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15 i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt dt. 31.03.2003, respectively.
24. For sake of clarity and better understanding, the averments in this regards made by the defendant in the original WS in para no. 4 (xvii to xxiv) are reproduced herein as follows;
" That the defendant had taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lacs only) from Shri Ramesh Parkash, the husband of the plaintiff on 07.06.2006 in the presence of the wife and son Raj Singh @ Rajesh of the defendant to meet the contigency/emergent situation in the family. That on 07.06.2006 at the time of advancing loan Shri Ramesh Parkash had taken the G.P.A., Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Will and payment receipt, which were in favour of the defendant and also of his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh as surety/security with the assurance that the same shall be returned to the defendant at the time of the repayment of the loan. That Sh. Ramesh Parkash, the husband of the plaintiff taking undue advantage of the dire need for money of the defendant also compelled the defendant and his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh to sign/thumb mark on a blank/unprinted stamp paper worth Rs.50/- and assured that the blank stamp paper alongwith the other documents G.P.Α. etc. would be returned at the time of repayment of the loan amount to him. That the loan amount was returned/repaid on 12.07.2006 to Sh. Ramesh Parkash by the defendant after the loan amount was withdrawn by the defendant from his retiral benefits from the bank and it was done in the presence of the wife and son of the defendant. That Ramesh Parkash did not return the documents on the day of repayment of the loan including the blank stamp paper i.e. on 12.07.2006 on the pretext that the same are not readily available and would be returned back in a week or so. That the defendant and his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh had been persistently impressing upon Ramesh Parkash Digitally to return the documents and the blank stamp paper but he signed by VIVEK continued to put off one pretext or the other. That the VIVEK KUMAR defendant and his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh again KUMAR AGARWAL approached Ramesh Parkash on 15.03.2011 and AGARWAL Date:
2026.04.27 demanded from him with the request to return the G.P.As 17:23:39 +0530 and other documents including blank stamp paper which (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 26/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH he had been dishonestly retaining after the payment of the loan and thereby committed criminal breach of trust as he flately refused to return the same and also reprimanded the defendant.
That Ramesh Parkash in criminal conspiracy, connivance and collusion with the plaintiff and others have made false, fabricated, fake and forged documents to lay a false claim-by instituting the present suit on the basis of the forged documents" (emphasis supplied).
25. Now, said averments are further read with the averments made in the additional WS and also the averments made in the evidence affidavit of son of defendant / DW-1 and also with the averments made by the defendant in the counter-suit filed by him and on comparison of said pleadings, following material contradictions are very apparent:
a). As per original WS, the defendant had availed the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Sh. Ramesh Prakash, husband of plaintiff on 07.06.2006 to meet the contingency / emergent situation in the family. Nothing was specified, if it was a friendly loan or the loan to be repaid with the interest and again the said emergent situation was also not specified. In the additional WS also, nothing was clarified in this regard, however, in the counter-suit, the defendant put forth a new story that in the year 2006 a police complaint was made by M/S Akhil Prints against son of defendant namely Raj Singh @ Rajesh at Paschim Vihar PS regarding the amount of Rs. 1,89,112/- and to return the said amount in compromise, the defendant had sought the "friendly VIVEK loan" from the defendant no. 1, as the defendant was well KUMAR acquaint with the plaintiff. The same version was deposed in the AGARWAL evidence affidavit of DW-1. Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 27/44 27.04.2026 17:23:45 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH
b). As per original WS, at the time of advancing loan, Ramesh Prakash had taken some documents from the defendant as surety / security with the assurance that same shall be return at the time of repayment of loan, whereas in the counter-suit, it was stated that said documents were handed over by defendant herein, himself to Ramesh Prakash.
c). As per original WS, Ramesh Prakash had taken undue advantage of the dire need of the defendant and had compelled him and his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh to sign / thumb mark on "a blank / unprinted stamp paper worth Rs. 50/-" and had assured for return of the said blank paper alongwith the other documents at the time of repayment of loan amount. In the additional WS, the defendant alleged that at the time of taking loan on 07.06.2006, defendant and his son were compelled by Ramesh Prakash to sign and put thumb marks on "blank stamp papers as well as blank plain papers" with the assurance of return of the same at the time of repayment of loan. Same version of additional WS was made in the counter-suit as well as in the evidence affidavit.
Accordingly, it is very apparent that in the additional WS, the defendant alleged about his signatures on "blank stamp papers as well as blank plain papers", which was a direct contradiction to the averment in original WS., wherein the VIVEK allegation was with respect to signature only on one (a) blank KUMAR AGARWAL stamp paper of Rs. 50/-. Again, no explanation has been given Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 17:23:51 +0530 PAGE 28/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH that if the plaintiff had compelled them to sign several blank stamp papers as well as blank plain papers, why the same was not specified in the original WS itself and why there was mention only of one (a) blank stamp paper.
d). As per original WS, there were no averments about any agreed interest amount to be paid on the alleged loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Even in the additional WS, there was no whisper about the said interest amount, whereas in the counter-suit the said defendant put forth the new story of payment of interest amount of Rs. 50,000/- to Ramesh Prakash on 12.07.2006 alongwith the repayment of alleged loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and same version was stated in the evidence affidavit.
26. In view, of aforesaid discussion, it is apparently clear that the defendant namely Dalel Singh made several improvements in the previous version of his original WS. The defendant has failed to explain why the said averments, as stated in the additional WS or in the counter-suit, were not made in the original WS, which certainly raises the pertinent question on the veracity of the version of defendant.
27. It is further observed that in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel & Ors vs Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari & Ors on 21 April, 2010, it was held that "It is a plain and basic rule of pleadings that in order to VIVEK make out a case of fraud or coercion there must be a) an express KUMAR AGARWAL allegation of coercion or fraud and b) all the material facts in support Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 29/44 27.04.2026 Date: 2026.04.27 17:23:56 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH of such allegations must be laid out in full and with a high degree of precision. In other words, if coercion or fraud is alleged, it must be set out with full particulars.
Again in Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai reported in 1951 SCR 548 it was held thus:
"27. We turn next to the questions of undue influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate and separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded.
28. It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid.
There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. See Order 6 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code."
28. In the facts of the present case, the defendant has completely failed to plead the material particulars regarding coercion or undue influence, as discussed above and on the contrary, he has made contradictory pleadings in this regard.
29. Going one step further, even if for sake of arguments, the new averments of additional WS and the averments of counter-suit are taken for consideration alongwith the averments of the original WS, it is observed that the defendant has failed to prove the alleged contingency for settlement in a criminal case filed against the son of defendant VIVEK namely Raj Singh @ Rajesh Kumar. Except making the KUMAR averments in the counter-suit, the defendant failed to prove the AGARWAL said version. Neither any record of such criminal case was Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 30/44 27.04.2026 17:24:02 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH produced nor was got summoned by the defendant. Again the defendant has further failed to explain the circumstances in which he was so compelled to take the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff, despite he himself serving in Delhi Police and he certainly would have some savings with him. In the ordinary circumstances, even if there was any such alleged requirement of the defendant of approx Rs. 2,00,000/-, he would have availed the personal loan from any bank, which could have been easily granted to him as being a public servant.
30. The defendant has further failed to explain that when the plaintiff was well-acquainted with the defendant and if the said amount was borrowed as a 'friendly loan' only, what were the compelling circumstances in which defendant had paid the interest amount of Rs. 50,000/- within the span of 35 days and the defendant and his son were also compelled to sign 'a blank stamp paper or some blank stamp papers / blank plain papers' and also to provide the previous original documents of the suit property in favour of defendant to the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention that the handing over of the original documents itself amounted to a secured loan and said loan would have been granted to the defendant by any banking institution or any other individual and then I am unable to comprehend that a friend of the defendant while giving friendly loan would have taken the original documents as security and would have also obtained the signatures of defendant as well as his son on some blank papers.
31. It is further pertinent to mention that admittedly the VIVEK defendant was working in Delhi Police. A police official can be KUMAR presumed to be well aware of the consequences of signing a AGARWAL Digitally signed (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 31/44 27.04.2026 Date: 2026.04.27 17:24:07 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH blank document and unlike an illiterate person, he cannot take the plea that he was not aware of the said consequences. Again, the court also cannot believe that a police official would have been under any coercion or undue influence of the plaintiff, whom he claimed to be an aquitant and that too for purpose of availing of secured loan. On the same lines, it is further pertinent to observe that allegedly the plaintiff had refused to return the original documents of the defendant as well as blank stamp papers / plain papers to the defendant on 12.07.2006, however, it is a matter of utter surprise that despite the same, defendant never gave any legal notice to the plaintiff in this regard and again the defendant being a police official himself never approached to police for lodging any complaint regarding the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust and he filed the counter- suit with respect to the said documents only in the year 2012, after filing of the present suit itself.
32. Again, the defendant further failed to move the alleged repayment of loan in July, 2006. No evidence was led, if defendant had withdrawn any cash for repayment of loan to the husband of plaintiff / PW-1.
33. Even otherwise, any of the averments regarding the alleged coercion or undue influence, no evidence has come on record except the self serving statement of LR / son of defendant namely Raj Singh @ Rajesh as DW-1. Nothing has been extracted in the cross-examination of husband of plaintiff/PW1 VIVEK so as to support the version of the defendant. KUMAR
34. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that AGARWAL Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 32/44 27.04.2026 17:24:14 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH the entire story of the defendant regarding availing of loan of Rs, 2,00,000/-, repayment of the same alongwith interest of Rs. 50,000/- and the signatures on the blank papers seems to be a cock and bull story and consequently, the entire version of the defendant in this regard is not to be relied upon.
35. Now let me advert to the merits of the case of plaintiff himself. It is observed that once the signatures on the documents were duly admitted, the onus had certainly shifted on the defendant to prove that in what circumstances, he had signed those documents, however, as discussed above, the entire story of the defendant itself has been found to be a concocted story.
36. Regarding the judgment of Sunil Kumar Jain (Supra), relied upon by counsel of plaintiff, it is observed that in the said judgement Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has made the distinction between 'signing of a document' and 'execution of a document'. The said distinction was drawn with the observation that for valid execution for a document, two ingredients are to be met, firstly placing of signature on the document and secondly, the knowledge of the contents thereof. Now, in the facts of the present case, the signing of documents in question including Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15 by the defendant as well as by his son is not in dispute, however, the defendant has taken the plea that he had signed the blank paper / papers. As discussed above, the said story of the defendant has fallen to the ground on several accounts and at the very first, the defendant VIVEK has taken the contradictory plea, whether he had signed 'one KUMAR AGARWAL blank stamp paper' or 'several blank stamp papers'. Accordingly, Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK AGARWAL KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 33/44 27.04.2026 17:24:19 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH when the plea taken on behalf of the defendant itself is not consistent and believable, for the reasons discussed at length as above, the defendant cannot be allowed to deny a document on the basis of a false plea. Even otherwise, the facts of the present case are apparently distinguishable from the facts of the case of Sunil Kumar Jain (Supra), wherein, the opposite party had taken the plea that his signatures were obtained on blank paper by the opposite party as being the CA of the said person and therefore, there was a fiduciary relationship between both the parties, whereas in the facts of the present case, there was no such relationship and on the contrary, it was the case of defendant himself that both the parties were acquaint with each other and that the defendant had taken the friendly loan from the plaintiff. Again it is also to be kept in mind that at the time of said alleged loan, the defendant was serving as police official and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be believed that defendant would have been under any pressure, coercion or undue influence so as to sign a blank document.
37. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that as the documents Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15 have been produced in original and as the defendant has completely failed to raised any doubt on the genuineness of the said document, I do not find any question on the execution of the said documents. This is also pertinent to mention here in that as reflected from the document Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15, they VIVEK KUMAR have been prepared on the stamp papers dt. 31.03.2003. The said AGARWAL stamp papers bear the date of purchase on the rear side and Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.04.27 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:24:25 +0530 PAGE 34/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH therefore, these documents can be duly presumed to be genuine in view of the presumption provided u/S 114 IEA (119 BSA) and specifically as provided in illustration (e) regarding official acts, illustration (f) regarding a common course of business and illustration (i) as the documents in question were in possession of plaintiff only. On the same lines, it is further observed that as per the contradictory version of the defendant, the said documents were allegedly got signed by the plaintiff from the defendant and his son on 07.06.2006, whereas, these documents Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15 have been prepared on the stamp papers of the year 2003. The defendant has failed to explain or to extract anything in the cross-examination of PW-1 that how and in what manner, the husband of plaintiff / PW-1 would have been in possession of the stamp papers dt. 31.03.2003 as on 07.06.2006 and how the photograph of the defendant on the said document was in possession of the plaintiff. Similarly regarding the document ExPW1/2, it is observed that it was prepared on one stamp paper dt. 06.06.2006 and said date is mentioned on the rear page of the said document. Now, again the defendant has failed to explain or to extract anything in the cross-examination of PW-1 that how and in what manner, the husband of plaintiff / PW-1 would have been in possession of the stamp papers dt. 06.06.2006 as on 07.06.2006 and how he would know that defendant was coming to him to obtain some loan, for which purpose he would have VIVEK procured the said stamp paper, in advance. It is not the case of KUMAR AGARWAL defendant that plaintiff was working as a professional money lendor, who would have kept the said stamp papers in advance so Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.04.27 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:24:31 +0530 PAGE 35/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH as to get them signed at the time of lending of money.
38. Accordingly, it is concluded that the genuineness and execution of the document Ex.PW1/12 to ExPW1/15 and Ex.PW1/2 has been successfully proved by the plaintiff on the preponderance of probabilities. Now let me advert to the legal impact / consequences of the said documents.
39. It has been argued by counsel for defendant that document Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15 did not confer any title or right on the husband of plaintiff as being unregistered document and in this regard reliance has been placed on the judgement of Suraj Lamp (Supra). In this regard, it is observed that undoubtedly the said documents did not confer any absolute title on the husband of plaintiff / PW-1 and moreover the defendant himself was not having any title in the suit property, as he himself had purchased the suit property on the basis of similar documents, as mentioned in the WS and placed on record as Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D4. Again as rightly argued by counsel for defendant, the defendant had no right to sell the said property to the plaintiff, as he himself was not the owner of the suit property. However, at the same time, it is pertinent to mention that though these documents did not confer any absolute title but they certainly created some rights in favour of the husband of plaintiff / PW-1.
40. It is observed that a GPA is covered under Chapter X VIVEK of Contract Act and an attorney is the agent of the executant of KUMAR the said GPA, as provided u/S 182 of Indian Contract Act. Again AGARWAL Digitally signed by where an agent has interest in the subject matter, said agency / VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 17:24:37 +0530 PAGE 36/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH GPA cannot be revoked as provided u/S 202 of Indian Contract Act. Now, as reflected from the GPA Ex.PW1/D1, the said document was executed in favour of defendant by Sh. Man Mohan Lal, who was the attorney of the previous attorney namely Bharat Singh S/o Gumani and as per the said document Dalel Singh was given the right to appoint general or special attorney and accordingly, the document Ex.PW1/12 i.e. GPA executed by Dalel Singh in favour of husband of plaintiff was a valid document. Now as per the said document the husband of plaintiff was authorized to manage, control, look after and supervise the suit property and was further authorized to execute, sign any other document for transfer of the said property. Rather in the said GPA itself, it was mentioned that it was irrevocable. Again as reflected from the document Ex.PW1/13, the vacant possession of the suit property was handed over by the defendant to the husband of plaintiff namely Ramesh Prakash. Accordingly, the husband of plaintiff had every right to execute further GPA and consequently the document Ex.PW1/7 i.e. the GPA executed by husband of plaintiff in her favour is a legally valid document and again the document Ex.PW1/10 i.e. possession letter is also a valid document, as the husband of plaintiff was already having the possession of the suit property, as mentioned in the document Ex.PW1/13.
41. Now, as previously the husband of plaintiff was having possessory title in the suit property and was further VIVEK KUMAR having the right to manage and supervise the suit property, his AGARWAL status as a landlord in the suit property is also not the matter of Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.04.27 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:24:42 +0530 PAGE 37/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH question. In this regard, it is further pertinent to mention that the concept of ownership has to be distinguished from the concept of land lordship, as a person may be a land-lord despite not being the owner of a property. Accordingly, when the execution of document Ex.PW1/2 has been duly proved, as discussed above, I do not find any further question with respect to the competence of the husband of plaintiff namely Ramesh Prakash to execute the said rent agreement.
42. It is further observed that it is a matter of legal trite that attornment of new land-lord by the tenant is not a legal mandate and said attornment takes place by course of law itself and accordingly, after execution of documents Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/10, the plaintiff became the landlady of the defendant in the suit property and therefore, she had every right to recover the possession of the said property from the defendant.
43. It is further observed that as reflected from the document Ex.PW1/3 read with Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5, the presumption can be duly drawn that the notice of termination of tenancy dt. 31.05.2011 was duly served on the defendant, as it was sent at the same address as of the suit property / demised premises. Moreover, there is no mandate under law to serve any written notice upon the licensee for termination of the license and even otherwise, the law is very well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Nopani Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santokh VIVEK Singh dated 10.12.2007' that service of summons of the suit for KUMAR eviction amounts to notice of termination of license/tenancy. AGARWAL Accordingly, even if for sake of arguments it is taken that Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 17:24:48 +0530 PAGE 38/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH defendant was not served with the legal notice Ex.PW1/3, the tenancy stood terminated in any eventuality on the date of service of summons in the present suit i.e. 10.11.2011.
44. It is further observed that as rent agreement in question i.e. Ex.PW1/2 has been duly proved, the contents of the same are to be read in the entirety. As per the said documents, the rate of rent was Rs. 5,000/- and therefore, the tenancy is also not protected under DRC Act.
45. Accordingly, it is concluded that the case of plaintiff is duly proved on the preponderance of proabilities for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant.
Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 2 :-
46. The said issue pertains to recovery of sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- claiming by the plaintiff as arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2011 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- p/m. It is a matter of settled legal position that the onus to prove rate of rent lies on the land-lord and the onus to prove the payment of rent lies on the tenant. As discussed in the findings of issue no. 1, the rent agreement in question Ex.PW1/2 has been duly proved and as per the said agreement, the rate of rent was Rs. 5,000/- p/m. Now, the defendant has not led any evidence, if he had paid said VIVEK KUMAR amount of rent to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is duly AGARWAL entitled for recovery of arrears of rent for the preceeding period Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.04.27 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:24:53 +0530 PAGE 39/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH of three years from date of filing of the suit, which is for the period of 19.09.2008 to 18.09.2011.
In view of aforesaid discussion Issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to effect that defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent of three years @ Rs. 5,000/- p/m, which comes to Rs. 1,80,000/- in total.
ISSUE NO. 3:-
47. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff only. As per the prayer (b) of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought the recovery of mesne profit / damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/-
per month for the period from w.e.f. 01.08.2011 till the date of vacation of the suit property by the defendant.
48. It is observed that as defined under Section 2 (12) of CPC 'mesne profits' means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom. In the present case,the defendant has been in wrongful possession of the suit property after termination of his tenancy. As discussed above the tenancy of the defendant was terminated after service of the summons on 10.11.2011 and therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled for relief of mesne profits as claimed by the plaintiff but with effect from 10.11.2011 only.
49. Regarding the amount of mesne profits, it is to observe that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the VIVEK amount of rent for various properties in and around Delhi have KUMAR AGARWAL been rising staggeringly. In this regard, I also seek reliance from Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 17:24:57 +0530 PAGE 40/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH the authority of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as "Vinod Khanna & Ors. vs. Bakshi Sachdev (deceased) through LRs & Ors." AIR 1996 (Delhi) 32, wherein it was observed that the judicial notice can be taken of the fact about increase of rents in the premises in and around Delhi, which is a city of growing importance being the capital of the country, which is a matter of public history. Again, in case of "Sh. M.R. Sahni vs. Mrs. Doris Randhawa" 2008 (104) DRJ 246, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while reiterating the steep increase in the rentals in Delhi, again emphasized that in relation to determination of mesne profits, there is always some element of guess work.
50. Accordingly, in view of this legal settled position,let me advert to appreciation of amount of mesne profit / damages. It is observed that the plaintiff has claimed the damages / mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month and same was deposed by the husband of plaintiff in his evidence affidavit, however, no question was raised in the cross-examination of PW1 in this regard, and accordingly the said version of plaintiff has remained unchallenged. Moreover, considering the fact that the rate of rent was Rs. 5,000/- p/m in the year 2006, I am duly satisfied that on the average basis that suit premises could easily fetch the amount of Rs.10,000/- p/m as rental value to the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is held entitled for mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month to be calculated from 10.11.2011 till date of delivery of possession by the defendant. VIVEK Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly in favour of the KUMAR AGARWAL plaintiff and against the defendant.
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 41/44 27.04.2026 17:25:04 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH ISSUE NO. 4
51. It is observed that as held in the findings of issue no. 1, the defendant himself had authorised the husband of plantiff to manage and supervise the suit property and said GPA was made irrevocable. Again it has been also held that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in the suit property. Accordingly, the defendant has no right to transfer the possession of the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff.
Issue no. 4 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 552. The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant, however, no evidence was led by the defendant to prove that what material facts were concealed by the plantiff. On the contrary, as discussed above the defendant himself has made several contradictory claims.
Issue no. 5 is decided accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 6 :- RELIEF
53. In view of above findings of issue no. 1 to 6, the plaintiff is granted following reliefs:- VIVEK (I) The LRs of plaintiff are held entitled for possession KUMAR AGARWAL of the suit property from the LRs of defendant and LRs of defendant are directed to handover the vacant and peaceful Digitally by VIVEK signed KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.04.27 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:25:09 +0530 PAGE 42/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH possession of the suit property i.e. built up property No. B-130, Swarn Park, Village Mundka, Nangloi, Delhi.41 as shown in site plan i.e. Ex.PW1/1 to the plaintiff within one month from date of decree.
(II) The LRs of plaintiff are held entitled for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.1,80,000/- towards arrears of rent and LRs of defendant are directed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff within one month from date of decree.
(III) The LRs of plaintiff are held entitled for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month from 10.11.2011 till date of delivery of possession by the LRs of defendant and LRs of defendant are directed to pay the said amount to the LRs of plaintiff within one month from date of decree.
(IV) The LRs of plaintiff are held entitled for permanent injunction and accordingly, LRs of defendant or their employees, agents, etc. are hereby permanently restrained to part away the possession of the suit property to any other person except the LRs of plaintiff .
Conclusion
54. In view of findings of issue no. 1 to 6, suit is hereby decreed with costs. Suit is hereby decreed, however, the LRs of VIVEK plaintiff are directed to file the court fees payable for aggregate KUMAR amount of mesne profits, calculated till date as per Sec. 11 of AGARWAL Court Fees Act within one month from today and thereafter, Digitally signed by VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 43/44 27.04.2026 Date: 2026.04.27 17:25:16 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
55. It is made clear that if said court fees is not filed within one month from today, the decree sheet be drawn for all the reliefs except the relief of mesne profits / damages. File be consigned to the Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.27
17:25:23 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC,
Delhi/27.04.2026
(Announced in open court
On 27.04.2026).
Note: This judgment contains 44 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK KUMAR Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.27 AGARWAL 17:25:28 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/27.04.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 44/44 27.04.2026