Delhi District Court
3 (East) vs Sh. Ganga Saran S/O Late Bharat Singh on 6 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
03 (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 1005/16
Smt. Sarita Gupta
W/o Dr. Naresh Gupta,
R/o 95, New Rajdhani Enclave,
New Delhi 92 ...............Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Ganga Saran s/o Late Bharat Singh
C/o Deputy Director, HorticultureIII, Sector39,
Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)
Also at: D1/121A, Aravali Apartments, Sector52,
Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)
Also at: E130, Sector36,
Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) ...................Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 12 LACS WITH INTEREST AND COSTS
Suit instituted on 24.11.2015
Arguments concluded on 15.10.2019
Judgment pronounced on 06.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1. This suit for recovery for money had been filed under Order XXXVII of CPC. Vide Order dt. 25.11.2016 defendant was granted unconditional leave to contest.
2. Facts, as set out in the plaint, as follows:
I) In year 2011 plaintiff and her husband came in contact with the defendant as latter had entered into a contract to construct her house.
II) On 20.04.2013 defendant came to the plaintiff's residence and told her and her husband about a commercial scheme of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (for short 'NOIDA') for allotment of commercial plots. Defendant painted a rosy picture of high returns out CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 1 of 14 of investments in the said scheme. Plaintiff came to know of defendant's employment with NOIDA. Defendant cleverly and calculatively explained to plaintiff and her husband that one commercial plot would be of 24 meters size and the Authority rate per meter would be Rs.
2,75,000/. Defendant further told them that 'a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/ (Rupees Twelve Lacs Only) in cash shall be required for the purpose of allotment'. Plaintiff and her husband were reluctant to pay Rs. 12 lacs in cash as demanded by the defendant. However, the defendant induced the plaintiff and her husband by saying that if a commercial plot is allotted to her, then in future, whenever the Authority comes out with a Residential scheme, a plot/house shall definitely be allotted to her on the basis of the said commercial plot and the plaintiff would then not be required to pay any amount in cash.
III) Believing defendant's assurances, plaintiff and her husband fell into his trap and agreed to invest in the manner as stated by him. Defendant thereafter explained the procedure for an application/form and informed that cost thereof is Rs. 11,000/. Defendant immediately took out a form from his folder and handed it over to the plaintiff. Plaintiff accordingly paid Rs. 11,000/ to him as cost of the said form/application. Defendant further informed that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12 Lacs is to be paid in three installments; first installment of Rs. 2 lacs after deposit of the form/application, second installment of Rs. 4 lacs after receipt of interview letter from the Authority and the third installment of Rs. 6 lacs after receiving the allotment letter. On defendant's direction, plaintiff filled up the form/application and had it attested by bank manager. As per the payment schedule, a draft of 10% of the total cost was to be deposited with the form/application, 20% of the total cost by way of draft after the receipt of allotment letter and the balance 70% as per the CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 2 of 14 schedule provided by the Authority.
IV) On 23.04.2013 defendant again came to plaintiff's residence and met her in her husband's presence. She handed over the said form/application together with a draft bearing no. 250540 dt. 23.04.2013 of Rs. 6,50,000/ drawn on Bank of Baroda, Defence Colony, Delhi favouring NOIDA to the defendant for depositing the same with NOIDA as directed by the latter.
V) Then again on 25.04.2013 defendant came to plaintiff's residence and gave a receipt dt. 24.04.2013 of submission of form/application to the plaintiff. Defendant, however, did not give receipt of deposit of the draft with the Authority. He undertook to give the same soon to the plaintiff. Defendant then demanded Rs. 2 lacs from the plaintiff. Plaintiff paid the same in cash to him in her husband's presence.
VI) Then on 21.05.2013 plaintiff received a letter dt. 16.05.2013 issued by NOIDA thereby calling her for an interview. Plaintiff's husband then telephonically spoke to the defendant and the latter assured that it was just a formality and further demanded the second installment of Rs. 4 lacs. The next day i.e. on 22.05.2013 defendant came to plaintiff's residence and she paid the second installment of Rs. 4 lacs in cash in her husband's presence as demanded by the defendant.
VII) On 29.05.2013 defendant again visited plaintiff's house. He handed over the allotment letter issued by NOIDA qua allotment of commercial plot in Sector - 122, Noida and he represented that he (defendant) had collected the same by hand and demanded Rs. 6 lacs towards the third and final installment. Plaintiff paid Rs. 6 lacs in cash the next day i.e. on 30.05.2013 in her husband's presence to the defendant at her residence. In the aforesaid manner plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs. 12 lacs to the CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 3 of 14 defendant.
VIII) Then in first week of June 2013 defendant informed the plaintiff that a draft of Rs. 13.20 lacs had to be deposited with authorities. On 14.06.2013 defendant came to plaintiff's residence and took a draft bearing no. 250777 dt. 14.06.2013 of Rs. 13,20,000/ favouring NOIDA drawn on Bank of Baroda, Defence Colony, Delhi for depositing the same with NOIDA. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant neither gave her the receipt of submission of this draft of Rs. 13.20 lacs nor the receipt of the earlier draft of Rs. 6.50 lacs.
IX) Plaintiff and her husband tried to telephonically contact the defendant about the receipt of the two drafts, but the latter ignored their calls. Plaintiff and her husband became suspicious and visited NOIDA office in Sector - 6, Noida, UP with the records/documents. Plaintiff showed the documents, which the defendant had given her, to the concerned officials who informed that the same were forged and fabricated and that the Authority had launched no such scheme. Plaintiff and her husband were shocked to hear this. Plaintiff immediately rushed to her bank to stop payment of the aforesaid two drafts of Rs. 6.50 lacs and Rs. 13.20 lacs.
X) On 23.06.2015 plaintiff and her husband somehow met the defendant and confronted him about the entire transaction to which the latter pretended to be shocked and he claimed that he too had been duped by others. Plaintiff demanded from the defendant Rs. 12 lacs and the aforesaid two drafts. Defendant assured to return the same at the earliest. However, their repeated requests to him to return Rs. 12 lacs were of no avail. After several efforts, plaintiff and her husband met the defendant and requested him to return the money. Defendant claimed himself to be CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 4 of 14 owner of properties E99 and E130 both in Sector 36, Noida, UP and expressed his inability to return Rs. 12 lacs, but he offered to sell his flat bearing no. D1/121A, Aravali Apartments, Sector - 52, Noida, UP to the plaintiff and gave a copy of its GPA, which was in his wife Mrs. Raj Kumari's name, to her (plaintiff). However, on verification from Noida Authority this GPA turned out to be forged and fabricated.
XI) Then on 16.09.2013 a meeting was arranged wherein defendant and his wife came to plaintiff's residence. Plaintiff and her husband along with their relative one Puneet Jain and a friend S.P. Arora attended the meeting. In the meeting the defendant assured to return the cash of Rs. 12 lacs at the earliest and executed a document {(Ex. PW3/G OSR)} in writing acknowledging that he had taken Rs. 12 lacs in three installments on different dates in 2013 from the plaintiff and in discharge thereof, he issued three cheques {Ex. PW1/A (colly)} bearing no. 034527 dt. 10.10.2013, 034528 dt. 30.12.2013 and 034529 dt. 28.02.2014 of Rs. 4 lacs each drawn on Syndicate Bank, Sector - 18, Noida, UP. All these cheques were returned dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds' vide bank return memos Ex. PW1/B (colly).
XII) Plaintiff's legal notices dt. 09.11.2013, 13.01.2014 and 11.03.2014 {Ex.
PW1/C (colly)} to the defendant were of no avail. Plaintiff instituted complaint cases {Ex. PW1/D (colly)} under section 138, NI Act against the defendant. Plaintiff also got lodged an FIR {Ex. PW1/E (colly)} bearing no. 208/14 PS Preet Vihar against the defendant.
XIII) On these averments, plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs. 12 lacs together with pendente lite and future interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum and costs of the suit.
3. The defendant in his written statement, filed on 26.12.2016, asserts at CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 5 of 14 the very outset that section 24 of Contract Act renders the consideration and object of the transaction unlawful because going by plaintiff's version herself she had given Rs. 12 lacs in cash for allotment of commercial plot through Noida Authority. He states that he holds the post of Udhyan Chaudhary (plants caretaker) in Noida Authority and as such he has/had no authority or power to provide commercial plot to the plaintiff at any cost. On the other hand, he goes on to state, plaintiff, a welleducated person, was not supposed to involve herself in unlawful act of obtaining allotment of commercial plot in Noida Authority. He avers that as per the contents of the suit itself, Rs. 12 lacs prima facie appears to have been given as bribe by the plaintiff to him for the allotment of commercial plot. He submits that plaintiff, knowing that he was a maali with Noida Authority, regularly insisted that since he had good approach in Noida Authority, he should therefore arrange for plots for her. And he always refused saying that he was only a maali and there was no manipulation in the Noida Authority and due to this she developed an animosity with him and filed the case. He avers that plaintiff filed no document to show that he was in any way connected to the alleged forgery and that admittedly he (defendant) did not sign or fill up any forged document. He further avers that plaintiff herself got prepared the bank drafts and he (defendant) has no concern whatsoever with them.
4. Defendant goes on to add that he has no direct relation with the plaintiff. According to him, he came in contact with her as his brother had constructed a house for the plaintiff. He states that dispute is that his brother, namely Vinod, had raised construction on plaintiff's plot, against which the cheques in question were given to her as security and the plaintiff later on misused those cheques. He alleges that he had given the acknowledgment dt. 16.09.2013 under pressure of the plaintiff, her husband and her associates. He denies taking Rs. 12 lacs in cash or Rs. 11,000/ as cost for the form of Noida Authority. He CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 6 of 14 also denies taking demand drafts from her. He also denies visiting plaintiff's residence. He denies that flat no. D1/121A, Aravali Apartments, Sector52, Noida belongs to him. He denies offering to sell this flat to the plaintiff. He terms all the cases lodged against him by the plaintiff as false and fabricated. Denying all other averments of the plaint, he seeks dismissal of the suit.
5. Plaintiff in her replication reaffirmed and reiterated her averments as set out in the plaint and refuted those of the defendant as set out in his written statement. She adds that the money was given under the belief that the same was in terms of Noida Authority scheme, but it later transpired that Authority floated no such scheme and that he cheated her with the sole intention to make unlawful gains. Besides this, she states that defendant had always been known as a building contractor in the area; that he constructed at least 20 houses in sector 122, Noida alone; that in 2011 defendant represented himself to be a building contractor and ever since then plaintiff knew him; that in 2011 defendant had constructed plaintiff's house in terms of an agreement dt. 14.07.2011 and received Rs. 11,20,000/ through 27 cheques of the period from 02.07.2011 to 09.11.2011 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Defence Enclave, Delhi; that defendant posing himself as a contractor gained confidence of the plaintiff and her husband; that he had also built the house of plaintiff's brother namely Abhay Raj for which an agreement dt. 20.08.2011 was executed and he received payments for the same; that in similar manner defendant usurped the money of many people and cheated them by issuing cheques which were dishonoured; that he cheated one Vikram Singh by issuing a cheque that was dishonoured and the latter then instituted a complaint case under section 138 NI Act against him; that defendant then offered to sell property no. E99, sector 36, Noida to Vikram Singh and got documents of property no. E99, sector 36, Noida executed in his favour but those documents were later discovered to be forged and fabricated.
CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 7 of 146. Issues, framed on 06.02.2017, are as follows:
i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 24 of Indian Contract Act, as alleged by the defendant? OPD
ii) Whether the cheques in question were given as security by the defendant, as alleged by the defendant? OPD
iii) Whether the acknowledgment dated 16.09.2013 was obtained from the defendant under pressure of the plaintiff, as alleged by the defendant? OPD
iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 12 Lac, as claimed by the plaintiff? OPP
v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
vi) Relief
7. In plaintiff's evidence following witnesses were examined: PW1 Sarita Gupta, the plaintiff herself.
PW2 Naresh Gupta, plaintiff's husband.
PW3 Manoj Kumar, Judicial Assistant in the Court of Ld. ACMM (East), Delhi. He appeared with the judicial record of Cr. Case No. 4268/16, FIR No. 208/14, PS Preet Vihar titled 'State v. Ganga Saran'.
8. The defendant led no evidence.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused. Written arguments of both the sides taken into consideration. Defendant's counsel in support of his arguments placed reliance on the judgment of Virender Singh v. Laxmi Narain & Anr., 135 (2006) DLT 273.
10. Issusewise findings are as follows.
11. Issue No.3 - The issue is whether the acknowledgment dt. 16.09.2013 {(Ex. PW3/G OSR)} was obtained from the defendant under pressure of the CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 8 of 14 plaintiff. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. Defendant in his pleadings avers that he had given the acknowledgment dt. 16.09.2013 {(Ex. PW3/G OSR)} under pressure of the plaintiff, her husband and her associates. However, the defendant led no evidence whatsoever to prove this. It is thus not proved that acknowledgment dt. 16.09.2013 {(Ex. PW3/G OSR)} was obtained from the defendant under pressure of the plaintiff. This issue is answered against the defendant and in plaintiff's favour.
12. Issue No.2 - The issue is whether the defendant had given the cheques {(Ex. PW1/A (colly)} in question as security. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. As per defendant's pleadings, the dispute is that defendant's brother, namely Vinod, had raised construction on plaintiff's plot, against which the three cheques {(Ex. PW1/A (colly)} were given to the plaintiff as security and she subsequently misused them. The defendant led no evidence to prove this. It is thus not proved that the three cheques {(Ex. PW1/A (colly)} had been given as security as averred by the defendant. This issue is answered against the defendant and in plaintiff's favour.
13. Issue No.1 - The issue is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of section 24 of Indian Contract Act. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. In the plaint, plaintiff states that defendant told her and her husband that 'a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/ (Rupees Twelve Lacs Only) in cash shall be required for the purpose of allotment'. However, plaintiff does not specify in the plaint as to for what specific purpose was Rs. 12 lacs paid in cash. NOIDA would certainly not take Rs.12 lacs in form of cash for the purpose of allotment of plots. This is clear from the form Ex. PW3/A, which the plaintiff had filled in. This form Ex. PW3/A (at page no.2 thereof) contains a column (column no. 8) for deposit of registration money through either of the following modes: 'Pay Order/ DD / Cheque No.' There is no option to CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 9 of 14 deposit the money in form of cash. The real purpose for payment huge amount of Rs. 12 lacs in cash lies hidden somewhere else. In her three legal notices dt. 09.11.2013, 13.01.2014 and 11.03.2014 {Ex. PW1/C (colly)} issued to the defendant, plaintiff, inter alia, makes identical assertions and which are as follows:
1. That you are an employee of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).
2. xxxx
3. That on 20th April, 2013 you came to my client's residence. At that time my client and her husband both were present. You told them about the Commercial Scheme of NOIDA for the allotment of Commercial Plots. You painted a rosy picture of the high returns before them. You deliberately and malafidely induced them to understand that they cannot succeed in the draw, unless and until they took the senior officials into confidence. You assured them that you could manage the things with the help of senior officials and can get a Commercial Plot allotted in my client's name in Sector 122 Noida.
After that, you cleverly and calculatively explained that the commercial plot shall be of 24 mtrs. and the rate of the Authority is Rs. 2,75,000/ per meter. You further told them that a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/ in cash shall be paid to the senior officers in the said Authority, for the confirm allotment of the said Commercial Plot. My client and her husband both were reluctant at the point of giving Rs.12,00,000/ in cash but you further induced them by saying that if a Commercial Plot is allotted to her, then in future, whenever, the Residential scheme comes out by NOIDA, then a plot / house shall be definitely allotted to her on the basis of the said Commercial Plot and she will not have to give any amount in cash at that time. ....
4. ............To win the confidence of my client and her husband, you took both of them to NOIDA office in Sector 19 and showed them a file that had notations from several officers indicating the progress of the allotment of a commercial plot in my client's name."
(underlined for emphasis)
14. Then in her complaints {Ex. PW1/D (colly)} under section 138, NI Act plaintiff, inter alia, states as follows:
1. That the accused is an employee of New Okhla Industrial CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 10 of 14 Development Authority (NOIDA).
2. xxxx
3. That on 20th April, 2013 the accused came to the complainant's residence. At that time the complainant and her husband both were present. The accused told them about the Commercial Scheme of NOIDA for the allotment of commercial plots. The accused painted a rosy picture of the high returns before them. The accused deliberately and malafidely induced the complainant and her husband to understand that they cannot succeed in the draw, unless and until they took the senior officials into confidence. The accused further assured them that he could manage the things with the help of senior officials and can get a commercial plot allotted in the complainant's name in Sector 122, Noida.
After that, the accused cleverly and calculatively explained that the commercial plot shall be of 24 mtrs. and the rate of the Authority is Rs. 2,75,000/ per meter. The accused further told them that a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/ in cash shall be paid to the senior officers in the said Authority, for the confirm allotment of the said Commercial Plot. The complainant and her husband both were reluctant at the point of giving Rs.12,00,000/ in cash but the acused further induced them by saying that if a commercial plot is allotted to her, then in future, whenever NOIDA comes out with a residential scheme, then a plot / house shall be definitely allotted to her on the basis of the said commercial plot and she will not have to give any amount in cash at that time. ....
7. ............To win the confidence of the complainant and her husband, the accused took both of them to NOIDA office in Sector 19 and showed them a file that had notations from several officers indicating the progress of the allotment of a commercial plot in the complainant's name."
(underlined for emphasis)
15. Next, the plaintiff in her police complaint {Ex. PW1/E (colly)} dt. 14.02.2014 addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Mandir Marg, New Delhi against 'Ganga Saran and unknown persons' states as follows:
1. That the accused Sh. Ganga Saran is an employee of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, in short called as 'NOIDA'. His employee code is 1674 and he is presently working as 'Udyan Chaudhary' in the office of Project Engineer, work circle 2, sector 19, NOIDA.
2. xxxx CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 11 of 14
3. That on 20th April, 2013 the accused came to my residence. At that time I and my husband both were present. The accused told us about the Commercial Scheme of NOIDA for the allotment of commercial plots. The accused painted a rosy picture of the high returns before us. The accused deliberately and malafidely induced me and my husband to understand that we can not succeed in the draw, unless and until we took the senior officials into confidence. The accused further assured us that he could manage the things with the help of senior officials and can get a commercial plot allotted in my name in Sector 122, Noida.
After that, the accused cleverly and calculatively explained that the commercial plot shall be of 24 mtrs. and the rate of the Authority is Rs. 2,75,000/ per meter. The accused further told us that a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/ in cash shall be paid to the senior officers in the said Authority, for the confirm allotment of the said commercial Plot. I and my husband both were reluctant at the point of giving Rs.12,00,000/ in cash but the accused further induced us by saying that if a commercial plot is allotted to me, then in future, whenever NOIDA comes out with a residential scheme, then a plot / house shall be definitely allotted to me on the basis of the said commercial plot and I will not have to give any amount in cash at that time. ....
7. ............To win the confidence of me and my husband, the accused took both of us to NOIDA Office in Sector 19 and showed us a file that had notations from several officers indicating the progress of the allotment of a commercial plot in the complainant's name."
(underlined for emphasis)
16. In the FIR bearing number 208/2014 dt. 26.03.2014 {Ex. PW1/E (colly)} the allegations are exactly the same as occurring in the aforesaid police complaint dt. 14.02.2014 addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Mandir Marg, New Delhi against 'Ganga Saran and unknown persons'.
17. The plaintiff (PW1) in her crossexamination however refuted that defendant had told him that Rs. 12 lacs was to be paid to senior officers of Noida Authority. She was then confronted with the documents Ex. PW1/E (colly). Her deposition in this regard is as follows, "The defendant did not say me that Rs. 12 lacs in cash shall be paid to the senior officers in the Noida Authority. Confronted with the portion A to A in Ex. PW1/E." In face of CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 12 of 14 plaintiff's own clear assertions in her documents, as aforesaid, that the sum of Rs. 12 lacs was intended to be paid to senior officers of Noida Authority, her self serving ipse dixit, contrary to the same, in her crossexamination can be of no avail as the same is on a complete afterthought.
18. It is thus clear, from plaintiff's own assertions, that the amount of Rs. 12 lacs was given in cash to be 'paid to the senior officers in the said Authority, for confirmed allotment of the commercial Plot.' This was towards illegal gratification. It was paid in cash with the object being to grease the palms of the senior officers of the said Authority in order to obtain a favourable order in the form of a conformed allotment of commercial plot. The aforesaid extracts would clearly show that plaintiff had knowingly paid Rs. 12 lacs to influence senior officials of the Authority. Plaintiff and her husband are well educated. Plaintiff has a degree of Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Economics. Her husband is a medical practitioner. Despite knowing fully well that giving Rs. 12 lacs in cash to be 'paid to the senior officers in the said Authority for confirmed allotment of commercial plot' is opposed to public policy, they went ahead and paid the same. The object and the consideration of the transaction are clearly unlawful. Sections 23 and 24 of Contract Act squarely cover plaintiff's case. In Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung, (1991) 3 SCC 67 a contract between A and B for wielding influence with the government authorities to secure a decision in favour of B has been held by the Apex Court to be opposed to public policy. Object and consideration of the agreement / transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant being clearly unlawful, the same are hit by sections 23 and 24 of Contract Act.
19. It was plaintiff's contention that it was only later on, after the entire fraud had been committed, that she came to know that defendant was employed with NOIDA. This will not alter the nature of transaction between the parties.
CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 13 of 14Even assuming that the plaintiff did not know the factum of defendant's employment in NOIDA, yet the fact of the matter is that the cash of Rs. 12 lacs, as per the plaintiff herself, had been given in order to be paid to the senior officers of NOIDA towards illegal gratification with a view to secure confirmed allotment of commercial plot. This issue is answered against the plaintiff and in defendant's favour.
20. Issue No.4 - This issue concerns plaintiff's entitlement to a decree for recovery of Rs. 12,00,000/. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The fact that the transaction between the parties to the suit are hit by sections 23 and 24 of Contract Act, the statutory presumptions attached to the cheques Ex. PW1/A (colly) under section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stand rebutted. Consequently, plaintiff is not entitled to recover any money from the defendant. This issue is answered against the plaintiff and in defendant's favour.
21. Issue No.5 - The issue is about plaintiff's entitlement to interest. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The outcome of issues no.1 and 4 a fortiori entail that plaintiff is not entitled to any interest. This issue is answered against the plaintiff and in defendant's favour.
22. Relief - The suit stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by MURARI PRASADMURARI SINGH Location: Court PRASAD No.7, Karkardooma SINGH Announced in the open Court Courts, Delhi Date: 2019.11.06 12:09:24 +0530 on 06.11.2019 (M. P. SINGH) Addl. District Judge03 (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS No. 1005/16 Sarita Gupta vs. Ganga Saran Page 14 of 14