Delhi District Court
Lal Singh vs Ms Vam Realcon P Ltd on 25 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI M JAIN: DISTRICT JUDGE-05,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ 16002/2016
CNR NO. DLS W01-001553-2015
Sh. Lal Singh
S/o Sh. Mool Chand Yadav,
R/o Village Paprawat,
Pole No. 17, P.O. Najafgarh,
New Delhi-11043 ..............Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s VAM Realcon Pvt. Ltd.
through its director,
Sh. Vinay Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. S.C. Jain
having its registered office: 5581, 1st Floor,
Lahori Gate, Delhi.
2. Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Tokas
S/o Late M.S. Tokas
R/o 458, Village Munirka, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Mahavir Prasad
S/o Late Jagat Singh.
4. Sh. Dharamvir
S/o Late Jagat Singh
Both R/o Village Paprawat, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043. ...............Defendants
Date of Institution : 01.09.2015
Date of Arguments : 29.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 25.02.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION, MESNE PROFITS
AND INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed
by SHILPI M
JAIN
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1 of 24 Date:
2025.02.25
16:58:48 +0530
INDEX
FACTUAL MATRIX ....................3
ISSUES ....................7
EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PARTIES ....................8
ISSUE-WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ....................11
CONCLUSION ...................24
1. Present suit for declaration, possession and permanent
injunction along with interim relief filed by the plaintiff for plot bearing
No. 33, land measuring 100 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 9/5, situated at
village Paprawat, Delhi State, Abadi known as Ganga Vihar as shown in
the site plan (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') with following prayer:
i) Pass a decree of Possession in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants of the suit property i.e. plot bearing
No.33, land area measuring 100 Sq. Yards, out of Khasra
No.9/5, situated at Village Delhi Paprawat, State abadi known
as Ganga Vihar New Delhi, as shown in the site plan;
ii) Pass a Decree of Declaration in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants declaring the Sale Deed dated
04.02.2011, executed in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2
by defendants No.3 and 4, as null and void and not binding
upon the interest of the plaintiff to
the extent of suit property i.e. plot bearing No.33, land area
measuring 100 Sq. Yards, out of Khasra No.9/5, situated at
Village Paprawat, Delhi State abadi known as Ganga Vihar
New Delhi;
iii) Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants, their legal heirs,
associates, nominees, agents, assignees, executors, any other
defendants administrators, servants ΟΙ person on behalf of the
restraining them selling, alienating, assigning, transferring
and parting with the possession of the suit property i.e. plot
bearing No.33, land area measuring 100 Sq. Yards, Khasra
No.9/5, situated at out of Village Paprawat, Delhi State abadi
known as Ganga Vihar New Delhi; SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed by
SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2025.02.25
16:58:56 +0530
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 2 of 24
iv) Cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendants and
(v) Pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the
interest of justice.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Fact of the case which are imperative to adjudicate issues
involved in this matter are succinctly recapitulated: plaintiff is the owner
of the suit property and had purchased the same from Smt. Shashi
(erstwhile owner) through General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell,
Affidavit and will executed on 27.08.2008 who had purchased the said
suit property from Jagat Singh who was in actual possession of the said
land through General Power of Attorney, Deed of Agreement, Affidavit
and receipt all dt. 31.03.1999.
3. Defendant no. 1 is a Private Ltd. Company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Director Sh. Vinay
Kumar Jain. Defendant no. 2 is Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Tokas who is doing
real estate business and jointly purchased the land area measuring 15
bigha 08 Biswas along with defendant no. 2 from defendant no. 3 and 4
(sons of Sh. Jagat Singh) and the suit property is part of that land.
4. It is averred that, Jagat Singh had developed a colony under
the name and style Ganga Vihar Colony over the agricultural land owned
by him and sold a part of the said land to Smt. Shashi from whom the
plaintiff purchased the suit property and came in possession of the same
on 20.08.2008 and thereafter, constructed one room and boundary wall
therein. Defendant no. 3 and 4 were also aware about selling of the said
suit property.
SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 3 of 24
by SHILPI M
JAIN
Date: 2025.02.25
16:59:02 +0530
5. It is further averred that, after death of Jagat Singh, defendant
no. 3 and 4 had mutated said land in their favour and played fraud upon
various buyers. Plaintiff made complaint to the police station Chhawla
regarding the demolition of room and boundary wall of the suit property
by defendant no. 3 and 4 vide DD No. 23B dt. 12.11.2008, despite which
they continued to harass the plaintiff to dispossessed her from the suit
property.
6. Thereafter, on 05.10.2011, plaintiff filed civil suit for
Permanent and Mandatory Injunction bearing No. 729/2011 titled as " Lal
Singh Vs. Mahabir Prasad" against defendant no. 3 and 4 and son of
defendant no. 3. During the proceedings of the said case, she came to
know that the defendant no. 3 and 4 had sold the said suit property to
defendant no. 1 and 2 vide sale deed dt. 04.02.2011 without any right title
and interest. The defendant no. 1 and 2 also conceded before the court via
their statements on 02.12.2013 regarding the fact of selling out the suit
property to defendant no. 1 and 2 due to which the said case was
withdrawn with liberty to file the same before Hon'ble High Court.
7. It is further averred that, plaintiff along with various buyers
filed civil suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction and
cancellation of sale deed dated 4 February 2011 before Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi vide CS No. 499 /2015, but upon hearing same was
dismissed as withdrawn due to some technical objection with liberty to
file a fresh before this court.
SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed
by SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2025.02.25
16:59:09 +0530
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 4 of 24
8. It is further averred that, plaintiff also made requests to the
defendant no. 1 and 2 to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of
the suit property but on 15.08.2015, defendant no. 1 and 2 dispossessed
the plaintiff from the suit property illegally and fraudulently stating that
they are bonafide purchaser for a total sale consideration of Rs.
1,75,00,000/-. They also threatened the plaintiff to sell, alienate or transfer
the suit property on the basis of sale deed dt. 04.02.2011. Hence, present
suit is filed.
9. Record reveals that summon were issued to all defendants
upon which separate WS filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 and 2 and
defendant no. 3 and 4.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND 2
10. It is averred that, suit for cancellation of sale deed is apparently
barred by the limitation as the sale deed dt. 04.02.201 is sought to be
cancelled after three years of its registration. It is further averred that, the
suit for possession is also barred by law i.e. section 185 of the Delhi Land
Reforms Act, 1954 and the suit land is agricultural land and at no time, the
said land was converted to non agricultural land/ colony. It is further
averred that, the without seeking any declaration of its own status, relief
of possession/injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff and
the plaintiff is seeking declaration of bhumidari rights in the garb of the
present suit for cancellation of sale deed dt. 04.02.2011 and possession.
11. It is further averred that, the documents filed by the plaintiff
cannot be relied upon or read in evidence as they are neither stamped nor
registered in accordance with law and the said documents conveying and
SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 5 of 24
by SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2025.02.25
16:59:15 +0530
delivering possession of immovable property are required to be registered
and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim title or to seek recovery
of possession or injunction. Further, the sale deed dt. 31.03.1989 was
required to be registered. The deed of agreement dt. 06.08.1997,
05.04.2010 and 04.10.2014 show concluded sale transaction and not a
contract of sale.
12. It is further averred that, Defendant no. 1 and 2 are bonafide
purchasers for value without notice of the earlier alleged agreements/
attorneys etc. in favour of the plaintiff and it was admitted in the pleadings
of the earlier suit bearing CS(OS) No. 499/2015 titled as "Lal Singh &
Ors. Vs. Mahavir Prasad & Ors." of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the
defendant no. 3 and 4 had demolished the boundary walls before
13.11.2008 which was much prior to purchase of the suit land by
defendant no. 1 and 2. It is further averred that, they had paid the full
consideration amount as defendant no. 3 and 4 were found to be in actual
physical possession of the land and revenue record was also reflecting the
title and possession of defendant no. 3 and 4. It is further averred that,
Plaintiff has filed the present false suit just to harass and blackmail the
defendant no. 1 and 2. Also, the suit property in not properly valued for
the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and adequate court fee is not
paid, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 10
CPC.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT NO. 3 AND 4
13. In addition to the grounds taken by defendant no. 1 and 2, in
their WS, defendant no. 3 and 4 averred that present plaint is liable to be
dismissed for want of court fees and jurisdiction according to the market
SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 6 of 24 by SHILPI M
JAIN
Date: 2025.02.25
16:59:22 +0530
value of the alleged plot in question and as no real cause of action was
shown in the plaint. It is further averred that, the present suit is also barred
by limitation and time as the plaintiff and Smt. Shashi had never been in
possession of the suit property in any manner whatsoever and the suit is
filed by the plaintiff on 29.09.2015 and therefore, relief of declaration
seeking sale deed dt. 04.02.2011 as null and void is barred by limitation
and by time. It is further averred that, the plaintiff alleged to have
purchased the suit property from Smt. Shashi on 27.08.2008, however, she
had not made Smt. Shashi as a party who is necessary and proper party of
the suit of the plaintiff for just adjudication of the case and is claiming
ownership on basis of forged and fraudulent documents. It is further
averred that, the present suit is also barred by section 41(h) of Specific
Relief Act as the plaintiff has got the efficacious and alternative remedy
by seeking damages etc. from Mrs. Shashi. It is further averred that, the
present suit is also barred by Order 23 CPC as the civil suit bearing No.
729/11 was withdrawn by the plaintiff and was not revived in shape of
fresh filing within prescribed time and limit. It is further averred that, the
present suit is also liable to be dismissed u/o 2 Rule 2 CPC as the alleged
documents of Mrs. Shashi and the plaintiff have not been sought to be
declared genuine and legal and the plaintiff has still not sought the
declaration of his ownership from any court of competent jurisdiction.
14. Perusal of record reviews that no application filed on behalf
of plaintiff despite opportunities, hence issues were framed.
ISSUES :
15. From the pleadings of parties, following issues are framed
vide order dated 13.07.2016:-
SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed by
SHILPI M JAIN
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 7 of 24 Date: 2025.02.25
16:59:28 +0530
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession against
the defendant? OPP
2). Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration against the
defendants declaring the Sale Deed dated 04.12.2011 as null and
void? OPP
3). Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as
prayed for? OPP
4). Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Limitation as the Sale
deed dated 04.02.2011 is sought to be cancelled after three years of
its registration? OPD
5). Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 185/84 of Delhi
Land Reforms Act 1954 as the suit land is agricultural land? OPD
6). Whether the plaintiff's documents cannot be read in evidence in
view of bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and
provisions of Registration Act? OPD
7). Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the
purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
8). Relief.
EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PARTIES
16. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself and
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and has relied upon
following documents:
SL. PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITS/MARK
NO.
1. Site Plan Ex.PW1/A, Ex.
PW1/B(Colly) dt.
27.08.2008 (running into 19
pages)(OSR), Ex.
PW-1/C(Colly 06 pages)
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI SHILPI
JAIN
M
M
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 24 JAIN
Date:
2025.02.25
16:59:58
+0530
(OSR)
2. Photocopy of sale deed dt. Mark P(Colly 06 pages)
04.02.2011
3. Copy of Khatoni Mark Q
4. Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court Mark R
5. Certified copy of orders Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-
1/E
6. Photocopy of police complaint Mark S
7. Certified copy of civil suit bearing Ex. PW-1/F(Colly 19 pages)
No. 729/2011
8. Copy of complaint to SDM Mark T(Colly 02 pages)
9. Site Plan Ex.PW1/A, Ex.
PW1/B(Colly) dt.
27.08.2008 (running into 19
pages)(OSR), Ex.
PW-1/C(Colly 06 pages)
(OSR)
10. Photocopy of sale deed dt. Mark P(Colly 06 pages)
04.02.2011
11. Copy of Khatoni Mark Q
12. Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court Mark R
13. Certified copy of orders Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-
1/E
14. Photocopy of police complaint Mark S
15. Certified copy of civil suit bearing Ex. PW-1/F(Colly 19 pages)
No. 729/2011
16. Copy of complaint to SDM Mark T(Colly 02 pages)
17. PW1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel of
defendant and discharges. plaintiff had also examined PW-2 i.e. Sh. Raj
Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Pyare Lal Sharma, R/o H. No. 26A, Block C,
Jeewan Park, Pankha Road, Janakpuri, PO Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
Thereafter, PE stands closed and matter was listed for DE. SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed
by SHILPI M JAIN
Date: 2025.02.25
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 9 of 24 17:00:04 +0530
18. In support of his case, defendant/DW-1 Vinay Kumar Jain
had examined himself and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
DW1/1 and has relied upon following documents:
SL. PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITS/MARK
NO.
1. Copy of board resolution Ex. DW-1/1(OSR)
2. Copy of sale deed dt. 04.02.2011 registered Ex. DW-1/2(Colly)
on 19.02.2011 (OSR)
3. Certified copy of order dated 06.08.2015. Ex. DW-1/3
4. Certified copy of plaint in CS No. 499/2015 Ex. PW-1/4 (colly).
5. Copy of Khasra Girdwari of land in question Mark A.
for the Fasli year 2010-11.
6. Copy of Khasra Girdwari of land in question Mark B to Mark E.
for the Fasli year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14
and 2014-15.
7. Copy of Khatoni of the land in question. Mark F.
19. Thereafter, DW-2 Sh. Mohit S/o Sh. Rishipal, Patwari from the
office of SDM, Kapashera, New Delhi had exhibited the following
documents:
SL. PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITS/MARK
NO.
1. Certified copy of Khaton of the year 2013- Ex. DW-2/1(OSR)(Colly
03 pages)
14 and 2001-02 of Village Patwari.
2. Khasra Girdwari of the year 2010-11, 2011- Ex. DW-2/2(OSR)
(Colly 05 pages)
12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 of
Village Paprawat.
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 10 of 24
20. Thereafter, DE also stands closed and matter was listed for final
arguments.
21. Arguments heard. Record Perused.
ISSUE-WISE ANALYSIS AND FINDING:
22. Since, defendant has raised Preliminary objections with respect to
limitation, applicability of Delhi reform, Indian stamp act and valuation
issue no. 4 to 7 are firstly analysis and issue wise finding are as follows:
ISSUE NO. 4 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Limitation
as the Sale deed dated 04.02.2011 is sought to be
cancelled after three years of its registration? OPD
23. In WS, it is averred that, plaintiff has earlier filed CS(OS)
No. 499/2015 in Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21st February 2015, i.e.
after the expiry of three years from date of registration of Sale Deed dated
4th Feb 2011. It is further submitted that CS (OS) No. 499/2015 was itself
barred by time and withdrawal of said suit with permission to file a fresh
does not have effect of extension of limitation period.
24. On the other side, in plaint, plaintiff specifically averred that
on 2nd December 2013 in another suit for permanent and mandatory
injunction as filed by plaintiff before the ld. Civil Judge, Dwarka court,
New Delhi vide CS No. 729/ 2011, defendant no. 3 and 4 made statement
that they have sold suit property to defendant no. 1 and 2. Thus, being
compelled by the circumstances on 5th August 2015, plaintiff along with
various other buyers filed suit before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for
SHILPI
M JAIN
Digitally signed by
SHILPI M JAIN
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 11 of 24 Date: 2025.02.25
17:00:11 +0530
declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction as well as cancellation
of sale deed but, same was dismissed as withdrawn due to technicalities
and separate suits filed including present suit.
25. At this juncture, it is imperative to discuss the law on
limitation for declaratory suit. Section 17 of the Limitation Act 1, which
deals with the effect of fraud and mistake. Thus, when the plaintiff relies
on Section 17(1) (b) of the Limitation Act asserting fraud or mistake, he
has to state the date on which he has discovered the fraud or mistake, and
also state that he could not have discovered the fraud or mistake with
reasonable diligence on a date earlier than on which he has based his
cause of action
26. The general principle, which also manifests itself in Section
17 of the Limitation Act, is that every person is presumed to know his
own legal right and title in the property, and if he does not take care of his
own right and title to the property, the time for filing of the suit based on
such a right or title to the property is not prevented from running against
him. The provisions of Section 17(1) embody fundamental principles of
justice and equity, viz. that a party should not be penalized for failing to
adopt legal proceedings when the facts or the documents have been
willfully concealed from him and also that a party who had acted
1 17. Effect of fraud or mistake.--(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of
Limitation is prescribed by this Act,--
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of Limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production.
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 12 of 24 by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.02.25 17:00:17 +0530 fraudulently should not be given the benefit of limitation running in its favour by virtue of such frauds.2
27. In his evidence by way of affidavit, PW1 also specifically depose that during the proceedings of the case, defendant came to know that defendant No. 3 and 4 have sold the suit property to defendant No. 1 and 2 on 4th February 2011. However, no cross examination of the PW1 was carried out by defendants in this respect despite the fact that onus of this issue was upon defendant. Thus, considering facts and circumstances of present case present suit cannot be stated as barred by limitation as three years is to be reckoned from the date of knowledge not from date of sale deed. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 5 Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 185/84 of Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 as the suit land is agricultural land? OPD
28. It is contention of defendant that present suit for possession is barred under section 185 of Delhi Reforms Act as suit land is agriculture land and relief of possession of agriculture land can be granted to bhumidhar or asami and relief is granted by ejectment of trespass under section 84 of the DLR Act.
Digitally signed by SHILPI M 2 Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 549. SHILPI JAIN M JAIN Date:
2025.02.25 17:00:22 +0530 CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 13 of 24
29. No doubt, section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act3 specifically excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hatti vs. Sunder Singh4 has held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is clearly barred under section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
If a Bhumidar seeks a declaration of his right, he has to approach the Revenue Court first. There could be no suit by any person claiming to be a proprietor because the Land Reforms Act does not envisage a proprietor having continued rights after the commencement of the Act. But, on the contrary, Section 1865 envisages that questions of title will arise before the Revenue Courts in suits or proceedings under the First Schedule and, only if such a question arises in a competent proceeding pending in a Revenue Court, an issue will be framed and referred to the civil court. Such a provision does not give jurisdiction to the civil court to entertain 3 185. Cognizance of suits, etc, under this Act.
(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 7 of Schedule I shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof. (2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie form an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule aforesaid. (3) An appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a court mentioned in column 3 to the court or authority mentioned in column 8 thereof.
(4) A second appeal shall lie from the final order passed in an appeal under sub section (3) to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 9 of the Schedule aforesaid.
4 AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2320.
5 Section 186, Delhi Land Reform Act: Procedure when question of title is raised.
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 185, if in any suit or proceeding mentioned in column 3 of Scheduled I, question is raised regarding the title of any party to the land which is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding and such question is directly and substantially in issue the Court shall, unless the question has already been decided by a competent civil court for the decision of that issue only.
Explanation:- A plea regarding the title to the land which is clearly untenable and intended solely to oust the jurisdiction of the revenue court shall not be deemed to raise a question regarding the title to the land within the meaning of this section. (2)The civil court, after reframing the issue, if necessary, shall decide such issue only and return the record together with its finding thereon to the revenue court which submitted it. (3)The revenue court shall then proceed to decide the suit or , accepting the finding of the civil court on the issue referred to it.
(4)An appeal from a decree of a revenue court in a suit or proceeding in which an issue regarding title has been decided by a civil court under sub-section (2)shall lie to the civil court which having regard to the valuation of the suit has jurisdiction to hear appeal from the Court to which the issue of title has been referred.
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 14 of 24 JAIN Date: 2025.02.25 17:00:28 +0530 the suit itself on a question of title. The jurisdiction of the civil court is limited to deciding the issue of title referred to it by the Revenue Court. This clearly implies that, if a question of title is raised in an application for declaration of Bhumidari rights under Item 4 of Schedule I of the Act, that question will then be referred by the Revenue Assistant to the civil court; but a party wanting to raise such a question of title in order to claim Bhumidari right cannot directly approach the civil court.
30. In present matter, apart from decree of possession, plaintiff is also seeking decree of declaration against the registered sale deed executed in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2 by defendant no. 3 and 4 as Null and void as well as decree of permanent injunction. In Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Seema Sethi & Ors.6 Hon'ble High Court held that the Revenue Court under the Delhi Land Reform Act has not been empowered to grant the relief of declaration of a sale deed as null and void with respect to agriculture land also or to grant the relief of injunction. Thus, present suit can not be stated to barred u/s 185 of DLR Act. Reliance is also made on Division Bench judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in Visa Agro Industries Pvt Ltd vs. Charan Singh and Ors7, wherein the issue was whether a suit which related to title could be filed before the Civil Court or it could be dealt with by the Civil Court only on being referred by the Revenue Court. In the aforesaid case the respondents therein were seeking declaration of sale deed as null and void for the reason that the executants of such sale deeds were dead on the date when such sale deeds were purportedly executed. In the aforesaid context, the bench in the aforesaid decision held that a Revenue Court, under section 185 of the Act, would not be competent to adjudicate the 6 2009 (2) AD Delhi 782.
7 2015 VII AD (Delhi) 516.
SHILPI M JAIN CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 15 of 24Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.02.25 17:00:33 +0530 validity of a sale deed which is challenged on the grounds of fraud. Thus, in the aforesaid case, there was no application of section 186 of the Act.
31. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 6 Whether the plaintiff's documents cannot be read in evidence in view of bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and provisions of Registration Act? OPD
32. Section 35 of the Stamp Act 8 provides that an instrument not duly stamped cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose, unless such instrument is duly stamped. It is contended that deed of agreement dated 6th August 1997, 5th April 2010 and 4th October 2014, are perused, it shall be evident that recital shows concluded transaction, not the contract of 8 Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. --
No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped :
Provided that--
(a) any such instrument 6 [shall] be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of any instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion;
(b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person tendering it;
(c) Where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped;
(d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (V of 1898);
(e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act.
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI JAIN M M Date:
JAIN 2025.02.25 CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 16 of 24 17:00:40 +0530 sale required to be perform in future hence, document cannot be read in evidence.
33. This court carefully gone through the entire material placed on record. Plaintiff is claiming ownership of the suit property on the basis of four documents that is general power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit and will all dated on 27 August 2008. As per plaintiff Smt Shashi sold suit property to the plaintiff by virtue of said documents. In his testimony, plaintiff exhibit PW1/B i.e. general power of autonomy, agreement to sell, affidavit, will, receipt and possession letter. Careful perusal of exhibit PW1/B reveals that none of the document is properly executed or registered. Not only this no material placed on record to show that Smt. Shashi was owner of suit property rather similar set is exhibited as exhibit PW1/C by plaintiff. However, same cannot be held as valid title documents. It is settled that, no one can transfer the better title what he has.
34. In Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2012 SCC 656) Hon'ble supreme Court of India specifically hold that, a SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court, in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank9 , that the "concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such
9 94 (2001) DLT 841.
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 17 of 24 Date: 2025.02.25 17:00:45 +0530 decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.
35. Thus, judgment in Suraj Lamp (supra) reaffirms an important legal position i.e. It "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised and said transfer can be made only a registered instrument10 and indispensability of registering a sale deed during transfer. In fact in Shakeel Ahmed vs Syed Akhlaq Hussain 11, Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that:
'10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the Respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same 10 Section 54, Transfer of Property Act.
11 MANU/SC/1257/2023 SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 18 of 24 Date: 2025.02.25 17:00:51 +0530 proposition. Reference may also be made to the following judgments of this Court:
(i). Ameer Minhaj v. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and Ors. MANU/SC/0685/2018 : 2018:INSC:578 : (2018) 7 SCC 639
(ii). Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi MANU/SC/1241/2022 :
2022:INSC:10111
(iii). M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit Chand Mitra and Anr. MANU/SC/1051/2023 :
2023:INSC:8542
12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable property. Once this is the settled position, the Respondent could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne profits against the Appellant, who was admittedly in possession of the property in question whether as an owner or a licensee.'
36. In Shakeel (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically hold that, the ratio in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two enactments.
37. Thus, in view of the above authoritative judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India juxtaposed with the facts of present case, document as relied upon by plaintiff cannot be considered in evidence. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 7 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD SHILPI M JAIN CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 19 of 24 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.02.25 17:00:57 +0530
38. In terms of Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, in suits for the possession Court Fees is to be paid as per the value of the subject- matter. In the present suit, plaintiff has valued his relief as follows;
"31. That the plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of court fees is ₹3,05,000/- and a court fees of ₹5,350/-. That the value of the suit for the purpose of relief of declaration is fixed ₹200/- and fixed court fee affixed ₹20/-.
That the value of the suit for purpose of relief of permanent injunction is ₹130 and court fee is a fixed, ₹13/-."
39. Onus of above issue was upon defendant. But, he failed to lead any evidence to contradict above valuation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the opinion that the present suit is properly valued. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession against the defendant? OPP ISSUE NO. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration against the defendants declaring the Sale Deed dated 04.12.2011 as null and void? OPP ISSUE NO. 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
40. All above three issues are interlinked hence, taken simultaneously.
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.02.25 CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 20 of 24 17:01:06 +0530
41. Section 34, Specific Relief Act12 provides that, a suit against any person denying or interested to deny the plaintiffs' title to the legal character or right to any property can be filed. To obtain the relief of declaration the plaintiff must establish that (1) the plaintiff was at the time of the suit entitled to any legal character or any right to any property (ii) the defendant had denied or was interested in denying the character or the title of the plaintiff, (iii) the declaration asked for was a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to a legal character or to a right to property (iv) the plaintiff was not in a position to claim a further relief than a bare declaration of his title. It is a discretionary relief.
42. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. V Regency Mahavir Properties, Civil Appeal No 5147 of 2016 observed that document though not necessary to be set aside may, if left outstanding, be a source of potential mischief. The jurisdiction under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (which is the pari materia provision to section 31 of the 1963 Act) is a protective or a preventive one. It is to prevent a document to remain as a menace and danger to the party against whom under different circumstances it might have operated.
43. Similarly, in Suhrid Singh V Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him.
12 34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.--Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Digitally signed
SHILPI by SHILPI M
JAIN
M Date:
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 21 of 24 JAIN 17:01:12
2025.02.25
+0530
44. Thus, what is important to note here whether plaintiff has any right, title, interest to suit property which is denied by defendant, but as already discussed above, plaintiff's title document cannot be look into being barred under section 35 of Stamp act read with section 54 of Transfer of Property Act and section 49 of the Registration Act. Moreover, plaintiff is stated to be in possession of suit property since 1999, but failed to produce even a single document to show his possession. Even during testimony, PW1 failed to corroborate with the averment made in the plaint. Relevant cross examination of PW1 is reproduced here in below:
"I do not have any documentary evidence to show that the suit property is in my possession. I do not have any photographs of the suit property. It is correct that the suit property is an agricultural land as on date.
I made a police complaint against defendant but I do not remember the exact date when I made the said complaint.
Question: Can you tell the year when the said police complaint was made against defendant?
Answer: I do not remember the year but I purchased the suit property in 2008 and thereafter I made the complaint.
I have filed only one suit in respect of the suit property. I had initially filed a suit before Senior Civil Judge, Dwarka Courts and thereafter filed a suit in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in respect of the suit property prior to filing the present suit. I do not remember the case number nor the year but the year may be 2008.
Jagat Singh (father of defendants no. 3 and 4) is no more. He was alive till 1995-96 as per my knowledge. I do not know whether Jagat executed any Will in favour of Shashi or not. Vol. Jagat Singh had executed a power of attorney.
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.02.25 17:01:19 +0530 CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 22 of 24 I cannot affirm or deny the suggestion that no Will was executed by Jagat Singh in favour of Shashi.
It is correct that I have made a complaint in the year 2008 about demolition of house in the suit property.
I have two more plots in Ganga Vihar. I am in the possession of these two plots. I do not remember the khasra no. of the land at which these two plots are situated.
There is Resident Welfare Association of Ganga Vihar. I have filed a site-plan in the court for regularization of the colony of Ganga Vihar. I do not remember in which case the site-plan of the colony is filed. It is wrong to suggest that there is no colony registered with the Delhi Govt. for regularization in the list of unauthorized colony.
It is correct that there is no electricity or water connection in respect of the suit property. It is correct that I have not obtained any telephone or any other service at the suit property. It is wrong to suggest that I was never in possession of suit property at any point of time. It is wrong to suggest that no colony by the name Ganga Vihar exists. It is wrong to suggest that there is no colony on the khasra no. 9/5. Village Paprawat, Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that I am property dealer purchasing disputed properties. It is wrong to suggest that nothing existed on the suit property in 2008.
It is wrong to suggest that documents Ex. PW1/B (colly) are not registered documents. It is wrong to suggest that the documents Ex. PW1/B (colly) do not convey any right, title or interest in my favour. It is wrong to suggest that documents Ex. PW1/C do not convey any right, title or interest in my favour.
It is wrong to suggest that my suit is false. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
(emphasis is mine) SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.02.25 17:07:17 +0530 CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 23 of 24
45. It is settled law that, if one person is claiming the existence of any fact and same is denied by another person, then, burden of proof to prove that fact is upon the person, who claims its existence. 13 But, plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to prove its contention in the present suit. Even if the title of the suit property is ignored then also prior possession of plaintiff not proved. Except GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, no material placed on record to show that executant of said document was owner or in possession of the suit property or plaintiff was ever in possession of the suit property. Thus, in view of above facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff could not stand on its own legs. Hence, all above issues decided against the plaintiff and present suit stands dismissed.
ISSUE NO. 8 - Relief/Conclusion
46. In view of above facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove his own case. Hence, present suit stands dismissed.
47. Parties shall bear their own cost.
48. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
49. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
Announced in open court SHILPI signed
M
by
SHILPI M JAIN
Date:
On 25.02.2025 JAIN
2025.02.25
17:07:23
+0530
(SHILPI M JAIN)
District Judge-05, South West District
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
13 Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558.
CS DJ ADJ No. 16002/2016 Lal Singh Vs. Vam Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 24 of 24