Delhi District Court
Sonia vs Simran on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE -04,
(PRESIDED OVER BY: ANIL CHANDHEL)
WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-006423-2016
Civil DJ No. 613425/2016
Sonia
W/o Naresh Kumar,
R/o 3A/86, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Simran
D/o Sh. Sagi Ram
R/o Not Known
Presently Trespassed in
3A/86, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18 ...Defendant
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, PERMANENT
INJUNCTION & FOR MESNE PROFITS.
AND
CNR No. DLWT01-003557-2018
Civil DJ No. 468/2018
Simran
D/o Sh. Sagi Ram
R/o Not Known
Presently Trespassed in
3A/86, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 ...Plaintiff.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 1 of 65
Versus
Sonia
W/o Naresh Kumar,
R/o 3A/86, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. ...Defendant.
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED
01.05.2015.
Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 instituted on : 05.09.2016.
Civ DJ No. 468/2018 instituted on : 21.04.2018.
Judgment reserved on : 24.05.2025.
Judgment pronounced on : 09.06.2025.
Appearances:
1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the Plaintiff in Civ DJ No.
613425/2016 and for the Defendant in Civ DJ No.468/2018.
2. Mr. Rajeev Kumar & Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates for the
Plaintiff in Civ DJ No.468/2018 and for the Defendant in Civ DJ
No. 613425/2016.
Index
1. Introduction 4-6
2. The Pleadings of the Parties: 6 - 10
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 2 of 65
2.1. The facts stated in the Plaint of the 6 - 8
Civ DJ No.613425/2016.
2.2. The facts stated in the Written
8 - 10
Statement of Civ DJ
No.613425/2016 and the plaint of
Civ DJ No. 468/2018.
3. Admission/Denial of the Documents. 11
4. Issues. 11 - 13
5. Evidence of the parties 13 - 19
5.1. The Plaintiff's Evidence 13 - 16
5.2. The Defendant's Evidence 16 - 19
6. Submissions of the Parties. 20 - 21
7. Conclusions on the Issues in suit 21 - 51
(Civ DJ No.613425/2016) and
reasons for such Conclusions
7.1. Issue No.1: Discussion & 21 - 45
Conclusion.
7.2. Issue No. 2: Discussion & 45-50
Conclusion.
7.3. Issue No. 3: Discussion & 50
Conclusion.
7.4. Issue No. 4: Discussion & 50-51
Conclusion.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 3 of 65
7.5. Issue No. 5: Discussion & 51
Conclusion.
8. Conclusion on Issues in the Civ DJ 51-64
No. 468/2018 and reasons for such
conclusions:
8.1. Issue No. 1: Discussion &
51-52
Conclusion.
8.2. Issue No. 2: Discussion & 52-63
Conclusion.
8.3. Issue No. 3: Discussion &
63-64
Conclusion.
9. Relief/Final Decision 64-65
JUDGMENT
1. Introduction:
1.1. In terms of this common judgment, the following two civil suits, filed by the parties against each-other, are being decided:
i. Civ DJ No. 613425/2016, titled as 'Sonia Vs. Simran' has been filed for the prayer of possession, permanent injunction and for receovry mesne profits/damages, with regard to the ground floor of property No. 3A/86, ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 4 of 65 Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, ad-measuring 100 square yards.
ii. Civ DJ No. 468/2018, titled as 'Simran Vs. Sonia' has been filed for the prayer of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015, with regard to ground floor of property No. 3A/86, Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, ad-measuring 100 square yards.
1.2. In terms of both the suits, this Court has to principally adjudicate the validity of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015 and other documents. The parties have been seeking to enforce their rights against each-other in the same property in both the suits and such claims are based upon the same rights/contentions on the basis challenge or sustainability of the same documents. The plaint in one suit is practically the written statement in the other suit and written statement in one suit is the statement of claim in the plaint in the other one. The facts and evidence to be considered for adjudication of both the suits are common and overlapping. Further the substantive Issue to be agitated and proved in both the suits is common. Both the suits are in the nature of claim and counter-claim and treated as such, in terms of Orders passed in the suits. The evidence was led by the parties in a consolidated manner only in Civ DJ No.613425/2016, which was directed to be read in both the suits. Therefore, it would be appropriate to decide both the suits by a common judgment.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 5 of 65 1.3. The suit for possession, i.e., Civ DJ No. 613425/2016, has been treated as lead case and the evidence has only been led in the same. Therefore, for convenience of reference, the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the aforesaid lead suit, i.e., in Civ DJ No. 613425/2016, are addressed as and Defendant respectively in this Judgment, except in para 8 of the judgment.
2. The Pleadings of the Parties:
2.1. The facts stated in the Plaint of the Civ DJ No.613425/2016:
This suit has been filed by Ms. Sonia, who is admitted owner of the suit property bearing No. 3A/86, Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The facts, as set out in plaint of the suit, are briefly summed up hereinbelow:
i. The Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) purchased the suit property, i.e., property bearing No. 3A/86, Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, by way of registered sale deed dated 31.03.2015 from its erstwhile owner, namely Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur. The suit property was in possession of the Plaintiff since 31.03.2015.
ii. On 30.04.2015, when Plaintiff along with her family members came back home after visiting her relative, ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 6 of 65 the Plaintiff found that the Defendant, along with her associates, was sitting in Plaintiff's house after breaking open the lock. Upon being asked, the Defendant told that she was the owner of the house and threatened the Plaintiff to leave the house or else she would drag the Plaintiff's husband in a false rape case. When the Plaintiff went to the Police Station, the Plaintiff was directed by Police Officials to go to Court as this was a property matter.
iii. On 01.05.2015 at around 2:00pm, the Plaintiff, along with her husband and her father-in-law, went to talk to Defendant on the above said address. The Defendant's associate locked the house from inside and threatened the Plaintiff to settle the matter or else the Defendant would tear the clothes and implicate the Plaintiff's husband and her father-in-law in a false rape case.
iv. The Defendant instructed, one of her associates, over the phone to bring some stamp papers, blank and typed papers. The Defendant took the signatures of Plaintiff and of her father-in-law on the afore- mentioned documents forcefully. When Plaintiff visited the Police Station and narrated the aforesaid incident to the Police Officials, they refused to take any action.
v. The Defendant along with her associates trespassed after breaking the lock open in absence of the Plaintiff ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 7 of 65 and the Plaintiff filed a written complaint with DCP on 07.05.2015 in this respect.
vi. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the mesne profit from the Defendant @ Rs.6000/- per month.
On the basis of above-mentioned averments, the Plaintiff has filed the suit, whereby the prayer of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits have been sought against the Defendant (Ms. Simran).
2.2. The facts stated in the Written Statement of Civ DJ No.613425/2016 and the plaint of Civ DJ No. 468/2018:
The Defendant (Ms. Simran) in the Civ DJ No.613425/2016 was duly served and entered appearance on 21.10.2016 and filed her written statement on 21.10.2016. The written statement in its subject also mentioned 'Counter-claim for declaration and permanent injunction', however no such Counter-claim has been filed by the aforesaid Defendant (Ms. Simran) and she has only filed the written statement in the suit for possession against her. Subsequently the Defendant (Ms. Simran) filed Civ DJ No. 468 of 2018. The averments made in the written statement of Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 and in the plaint of Civ DJ No.468/2018 are same. The Defendant (Ms. Simran) has denied the averments/contentions of Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia). The case, as ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 8 of 65 set up in the written statement of Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 and in the plaint of Civ DJ No.468/2018, is briefly summed up in the paras stated hereinbelow:
i. The Defendant (Ms. Simran) is the law abiding citizen of India and is residing on the above said address. In April 2015, the Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) introduced herself as owner and in possession of suit property.
ii. On 01.05.2015, the Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) and the Defendant (Ms. Simran) entered into an agreement to sell with regard to suit property, for total consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- in presence of witnesses. The Plaintiff executed an Agreement to Sale, General Power of Attorney, Receipt and Possession letter in favour of the Defendant on 01.05.2015 after receiving the full consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) from the Defendant in presence of witnesses and handed over possession of the property to the Defendant.
iii. As per Clause 7 of agreement to sell, the Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) was bound to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Defendant (Ms. Simran). As per clause 6 of agreement to sell, the Defendant (Ms. Simran) was ready and willing to bear expenses of ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 9 of 65 sale deed. The Defendant (Ms. Simran) had requested the Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) to execute the sale deed and eventually a legal notice dated 12.03.2018 was also issued, however the Plaintiff did not come forward to execute the sale deed.
On the basis of the afore-mentioned averments, the Defendant (Ms. Simran) in Civ DJ No.613425/2016 has contested the right of the Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) to seek possession and other prayers and further has also filed her own suit, i.e., Civ DJ No.468/2018, whereby she has sought the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015 for execution of the sale deed in her favour.
2.3. The Plaintiff in Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 has filed the replication to the written statement of the Defendant, whereby she refuted the contentions of the Defendant and reiterated the contentions of plaint in her suit. Further the Plaintiff has also filed written statement in the Civ DJ No. 468/2018, whereby case, as set up by Ms. Simran is denied and the averments made in the plaint of Civ DJ No.613425/2016 are reiterated. The Defendant has filed the replication to the written statement in Civ DJ No.468/2018 and reiterated the contentions of her being having entered into valid agreement to sell after payment of the consideration.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 10 of 65
3. Admission/Denial of the Documents:
3.1. The parties have carried out the admission/denial of the documents in Civ DJ No. 613425 and have relied upon the aforesaid admission/denial in the suit, filed by the Defendant, i.e., Civ DJ No.468/2018. The Defendant has admitted the sale deed dated 30.03.2015, which was marked as Exhibit P-1 and denied the other documents. The Plaintiff has admitted her signatures on the GPA, the agreement to sell, the affidavit, the receipt, the possession letter and Will dated 01.05.2015, however denied the contents of the aforesaid documents. The aforesaid documents are exhibited in the following manner in the admission/denial:
i. Exhibit D-1: General Power of Attorney dated 01.05.2015;
ii. Exhibit D-2: Agreement to Sell dated 01.05.2015; iii. Exhibit D-3: Affidavit dated 01.05.2015; iv. Exhibit D-4: Receipt dated 01.05.2015;
v. Exhibit D-5: Possession letter, dated 01.05.2015;
vi. Exhibit D-6: Will dated 01.05.2015; 4. Issues.
4.1. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the suit, filed by the Plaintiff, i.e., in Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 on 08.02.2018:
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 11 of 65 i. Whether the Plaintiff's signatures were obtained forcefully by the defendant on the blank sale documents, i.e., GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, will and possession letter, all dated 01.05.2015, if so, its effect? OPP ii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit property, as prayed for?
OPP iii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP iv. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite mesne profits @ Rs.6,000/ per month from the defendant? OPP.
v. If issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest, if so, at what rate? OPP vi. Relief.
4.2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the suit filed by the Defendant, i.e., in Civ DJ No. 468/2018, on 29.01.2019:
i. Whether the defendant' signatures were obtained forcefully by the plaintiff on the blank sale ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 12 of 65 documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, Will and possession letter, all dated 01.05.2015, if so, its effect? OPD ii. Whether the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the sale consideration to the defendant? OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015, as prayed for? OPP iv. Relief
5. Evidence of the parties:
5.1. The Issues were framed separately in both the suits, however in terms of Order dated 29.01.2019, passed in both the suits, the suits were consolidated for recording of evidence and it was directed that Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 would be treated as the lead case. The evidence was to be recorded only in the lead suit and was to be read and considered in the other suit, i.e., Civ DJ No. 468/2018. Therefore, the parties have led evidence only in the Civ DJ No. 613425/ 2016 suit, which is now to be read in both the suits.
5.2. The Plaintiff's Evidence:
5.2.1. The Plaintiff in the Civ DJ No. 613425/ 2016 has led the evidence first and has examined only herself, as the sole ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 13 of 65 witness. The Plaintiff has reiterated the contentions of the plaint in Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 and of the written statement in Civ DJ No. 468/208 in her examination-in-
chief. The Plaintiff has further exhibited and relied upon the following documents in her examination-in-chief:
i. Exhibit PW-1/1: Sale deed dated 06.04.2015. ii. Mark-A: Copy of the complaint dated 07.05.2015.
5.2.2. The PW-1 was party cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant on 18.07.20222 and her cross-examination dated 18.07.2022 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"I do not remember whether I had asked from the previous owner who executed the Sale Deed in my favour, about the documents by which she was the owner of the suit property. I do not know if I had seen any title documents of the previous owner or not before execution of the Sale Deed in my favour.
My father-in-law and one Sardarji (Since deceased) were the middlemen for sale and purchase of the suit property. I do not know the name, father name and address of that Sardarji. I also do not now whether the said Sardarji was a Property Dealer or not. I met the previous owner Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur for the first time outside the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the Sale Deed half as hour ago. I never visited at the house of previous owner Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur. I never visited the site of the suit property before registration of the Sale Deed. I visited the suit property after I-2 days of the registration of the Sale Deed, although I am unable to exactly recall the same. At the time when I visited the suit property, no one was present there and my lock was put a t the suit property. The said lock was put by my father-in-law Mr. Dayanand Grover. I do not remember when he had put the said lock ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 14 of 65 on the suit property. Again said, he had put the aid lock at the time when he had seen the suit property for purchasing.
It is correct that the previous owner Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur was not present when my father-in-law lock on the suit property. It is correct that previous owner Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur was also not present at the suit property when I visited the suit property. I do not know whether I have with me the previous chain of documents in respect of ownership of the suit property or not."
The Plaintiff was further cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Defendant on 10.04.2024 and her cross-examination dated 10.04.2024 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"I do not remember when I secondly visited the suit property in the year 2015. When I visited the suit property second time, I saw that the Defendant and her associates were there sitting in the suit premises and they threatened me and took the signatures on several documents. No photographs and documents were with me at that time. I do not remember when I visited the police station. It is wrong to suggest that I have not visited the Police Station on the same day. (Vol.) I have visited the Police Station on several occasion. The defendant had not paid any amount to me. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant has taken the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs on 01.04.2015. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
I do not remember when I secondly visited the suit property in the year 2015. When I visited the suit property second time, I saw that the Defendant and her associates were there sitting in the suit premises and they threatened me and took the signatures on several documents. No photographs and documents were with me at that time. I do not remember when I visited the police station. It is wrong to suggest that I have not visited the Police Station on the same day. (Vol.) I have visited the Police Station on several occasion. The defendant had not paid any amount to me. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant has taken ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 15 of 65 the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs on 01.04.2015. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
The Plaintiff was discharged upon conclusion of her cross examination on 10.04.2024. The Plaintiff closed her evidence upon conclusion of her cross-examination and did not examine any other witness.
5.3. The Defendant's Evidence:
5.3.1. After conclusion of the Plaintiff's evidence, the Defendant has led her evidence and has examined only herself as the sole witness in the matter. The Defendant has reiterated the contentions of the written statement in Civ DJ No.613425/2016 and of the plaint in Civ DJ No.468/2018 in her examination-in-chief. She has further exhibited and relied upon the following documents in her examination-in-
chief:
i. Exhibit DW-1/A (colly): GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter & Will, all dated 01.05.2015.
The Exhibit DW-1/A (Colly) were also already exhibited as Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 in the admission/denial of the documents. Since the aforesaid previous exhibition was not pointed out at the time of examination in chief of the DW-1, therefore the aforementioned documents were exhibited twice.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 16 of 65 5.3.2. The DW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff on 09.04.2025 and her cross-examination is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"I have studied upto 12th standard. I can understand English language a little bit. I am aware of all the contents of my affidavit of evidence as my lawyer explained to me in Hindi language. My affidavit of evidence got attested at Patiala House Court. I have met the Plaintiff firstly in the year 2015 regarding purchasing of the suit property but I do not remember the date and month. The father-in-law of the Plaintiff namely Sh. Daya Nand, who was working as property dealer, informed me about the sale of the suit property by the Plaintiff. I met Sh. Daya Nand at Vishnu Garden at his residence bearing no. WZ-IIIA/86, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi as at that time, I was residing at WZ- IIIA/89, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. The office of Sh. Daya Nand from where he was operating the work of property dealing, which was situated at somewhere Chand Nagar. I never met Sh. Daya Nand in his office at Chand Nagar but once, I visited his office but I do not remember the date, month and year, when I visited the office of Sh. Daya Nand. Sh. Daya Nand himself informed me in the year 2015 at my residence i.e. WZ-IIIA/89, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi that the suit property is under sale. I do not remember the date and month, when Sh. Daya Nand informed. I did not know Sh. Daya Nand prior to that.
I know Sh. Daya Nand through one namely Ms. Bimla and furthermore, Sh. Daya Nand was residing opposite to my house i.e. WZ-IIIA/89, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. I had seen the photocopy of the suit property of the Plaintiff. The said document shown to me by Sh. Daya Nand in the year 2015 at my residence but I do not remember the date, time and month. Sh. Daya Nand shown me the documents of the suit property in the name of the Plaintiff but I do not remember the name of those documents. The Plaintiff as well as her father-in-law namely Sh. Daya Nand demanded a sum of Rs.20 lakhs for the sale and purchase of the suit property. Firstly, I met with the Plaintiff when her father-in-law shown me the documents of the suit property but I do not remember the date, time and month of the same. At that time, the ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 17 of 65 Plaintiff, Sh. Daya Nand and daughter of Sh. Daya Nand were present there. All the above mentioned persons were gathered at my residence i.e. WZ-IIIA/89, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. With respect to the purchase of the suit property by me from the Plaintiff, the document Ex.DW-1/A (Colly) were prepared. Prior to this, no documents were prepared in this regard. After 10 days of meeting with the Plaintiff and Sh. Daya Nand, the said documents were prepared. The said documents Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) got prepared by Sh. Daya Nand. It is correct that at the time of preparation of the said documents, I was not present there. It is also correct that I have not purchased the stamp paper regarding those documents. (Vol.) all those documents got prepared by Sh. Daya Nand. It is also correct that I cannot say that who were present at the time of preparation of the documents. (Vol.) at the time of signing of Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) me, Plaintiff, her father-in-law and daughter of Sh. Daya Nand was present. Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) got signed at WZ-IIIA/86, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) got attested by Sh. Daya Nand of his own after getting signatures of the concerned persons. I could not say that the said documents got attested by Sh. Daya Nand. (Vol.) Sh. Daya Nand informed that he got attested Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) from one of his known notary. Sh. Daya Nand also informed that the office of that notary is situated at somewhere in Khyala and told his name as Sh. Raju.
I did not visit the office of the said notary at the time of the attestation of those documents. I could not say the name of the persons who were present at the time of attestation of those documents as I was not present there. (Vol.) Sh. Daya Nand informed me that he would manage the attestation of Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) as the notary is his known. I paid the sale consideration amount of Rs.20 lakhs to Sh. Daya Nand at the time of signing of Ex.DW-1/A(Colly). I cannot say about denomination of the currency. I arranged the said amount of Rs.20 lakhs on the date of signing Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) from my mother Smt. Joginder Kaur and my Bhua namely Smt. Seeto R/o District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Out of Rs.20 lakhs, I had Rs.4-5 lakhs with me and got Rs.10 lakhs from my mother and rest of Rs.5 lakhs from Bhua. Presently, I am not doing any work. At the time of purchasing of the suit property, I was taking tuitions of Class 1st to 5th. I cannot say ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 18 of 65 how many children were taught by me at that time. There is no fix amount of tuition fees. I saved Rs.5 lakhs in a long time but I cannot say exact period from when I started saving. My mother was getting rental income but I cannot say the rental income of my mother. My mother used to live around 5 kms. far from my residence. I myself collected Rs.10 lakhs from my mother prior to 3-4 days of signing Ex.DW-1/A(Colly). I do not remember the denomination of the said currency. Rs.5 lakhs which were arranged by me from my Bhua was with my mother. The said amount were asked by my mother from my Bhua.
I do not remember the date, time and month when my mother arranged the said amount from my Bhua but it was in the 2015. I cannot say about the denomination of currency notes. At the time of signing of Ex.DW-1/A, I was not having sufficient amount to get registered the sale-deed qua the said transaction and furthermore, the Plaintiff assured to get registered the sale-deed after some time. After one week of singing of Ex.DW-1/A(Colly), I have arranged the money and requested Sh. Daya Nand to execute the sale- deed, however, the Plaintiff instead of execution of sale-deed filed the present suit. I have communicated the aforesaid request only to Sh. Daya Nand and not directly to the Plaintiff. Sh. Daya Nand has not refused to execute the sale- deed .I did not initiate any action after Sh. Daya Nand refused to execute the sale-deed in my favour. It is wrong to suggest that Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) are forged and fabricated documents or that the same were prepared only by me at my instance. It is wrong to suggest that I have trespassed in the suit property after breaking open lock of the suit property and forcibly obtained the signatures of the Plaintiff on the documents Ex.DW-1/A(Colly), on the threat of implicating the Plaintiff in false cases. I am not aware whether the Plaintiff has filed a criminal case against me. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
The Defendant was discharged upon conclusion of her cross examination on 09.04.2025. The Defendant closed her evidence upon conclusion of her cross-examination and did not examine any other witness.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 19 of 65
6. Submissions of the Parties.
6.1. After conclusion of the evidence, Ld. Counsels for the parties have addressed their arguments. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff in Civ DJ No.613425/2016 (for Defendant in Civ DJ No.468/2018) has submitted that the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015 was obtained by placing the Plaintiff in duress and under threat of malicious prosecution of the Plaintiff's husband and her father-law. It is submitted that the agreement to sell and other documents dated 01.05.2015 are invalid and the aforesaid invalidity is also indicated by the factum of there being no proof of payment of the sale consideration. It is submitted that the Defendant has failed to prove the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- and therefore, there was no reason for the Plaintiff to execute the agreement to sell in question and the same was executed for reasons stated in the plaint of Civ DJ No.613425/2016. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has proved the averments of forcible signatures in her examination-in-chief and the Defendant has not challenged the same by any negative suggestion and therefore, the same stood proved against the Defendant. It is submitted that the Defendant has stated in her evidence that entire transaction was between the Defendant and the Plaintiff's father-in-law and therefore, even if the same is assumed to be true, the aforesaid transaction cannot be fastened upon the Plaintiff. It is stated that the Plaintiff is the admitted owner of the suit property and the suit for specific performance has been filed after one and half years of filing ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 20 of 65 of the suit for possession, which raises a question mark on the readiness and willing of the Defendant and therefore, she is not entitled to specific performance.
6.2. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff has failed to prove the averments about the agreement to sell and other documents being signed by exercise of threat or force. It is submitted that the Plaintiff did not file any documents to support her contentions. It is stated that the Plaintiff did not prove the filing of the police complaint dated 07.05.2015. It is submitted that the conduct of the Plaintiff in sitting silent in the wake of such allegation lead to only one conclusion that the aforesaid incidents did not happen. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has not even sought declaration with regard to the aforesaid documents in question and therefore is not entitled to the prayer of possession. It is submitted that once the Plaintiff fails to prove the contentions of the documents being executed by exercising force or threat of malicious prosecution, the documents stand proved against her and therefore, the decree for specific performance is only consequence in the suit.
7. Conclusions on the Issues in suit (Civ DJ No.613425/2016) and reasons for such Conclusions:
7.1. Issue No.1: Whether the Plaintiff's signatures were obtained forcefully by the defendant on the blank sale documents, i.e., GPA, ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 21 of 65 agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, will and possession letter, all dated 01.05.2015, if so, its effect? OPP 7.1.1. The onus to prove this Issue is upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is admitted owner of the suit property. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant trespassed forcibly into the suit property by breaking open the lock and threatened the Plaintiff to implicate her husband and father-in-law in a false rape case and on the basis of aforementioned threats forcefully obtained the signatures of the Plaintiff and her father in law on blank and typed documents. The documents in question are marked Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 {(also marked as Exhibit DW-1/A (Colly) in the Defendant's examination in chief}. The Defendant has stated that she has purchased the suit property from the Plaintiff, after payment of the sale consideration, in terms of Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6.
7.1.2. The Plaintiff has admitted her signatures on the Exhibit D-1 to D-6 during admission/denial of the documents, however she has denied the contents of the same. The contention of the Plaintiff is that the Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5 were executed without her free consent.
7.1.3. Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines the Consent in the following terms:
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 22 of 65 "Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense."
Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines 'Free Consent' in the following manner:
"Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by: (1) coercion, as defined in section 15, or (2) undue influence, as defined in section 16, or (3) fraud, as defined in section 17, or (4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or (5) mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21 and 22. Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake."
Therefore, the consent is not free, when it is caused by coercion under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which is also relevant to the facts under consideration and the Section 15 of the Act of 1872 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
"15. 'Coercion' defined:
'Coercion' is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
Explanation:
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 23 of 65 It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed.
Illustrations:
A, on board an English ship on the high seas, causes B to enter into an agreement by an act amounting to criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). A afterwards sues B for breach of contract at Calcutta.
A has employed coercion, although his act is not an offence by the law of England, and although section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) was not in force at the time when or place where the act was done."
Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 further provides that when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
7.1.4. The relevant averments made by the Plaintiff in the plaint, with regard to her consent obtained by coercion, are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"4. That on 30 April, 2015 when Plaintiff along with her family members came back home after visiting her relative, the Plaintiff found Defendant along with her associates was sitting in Plaintiff's house after breaking the lock.
5. That upon asking Defendant told that she is the owner of the house and threatened the Plaintiff to ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 24 of 65 leave the house else she will drag the husband of Plaintiff in false case of rape.
6. That when the Plaintiff went to police station the Plaintiff was directed by police officials to go to Court as this is a property matter and police has nothing to do in this matter.
7. That on 1st May 2015 at around 2,00PM Plaintiff along with her husband and father in law went to talk to Defendant on the above said address. The Defendant's associate locked the house from inside and threatened the Plaintiff to settle this else Defendant will tear their clothes and indulge the husband and father in law of Plaintiff in false case of rape right now.
8. That the Defendant instructed one of her associate to bring some stamp papers, blank and typed papers over the phone.
9. That when the Defendant took Plaintiff's and her father in law's signature on these above said documents forcefully.
10. That when Plaintiff visited the police station and narrated this fact to police official they refused to take any action as this matter is civil in nature.
11. That the Defendant alongwith her associates trespassed after breaking the lock.
12. That a Plaintiff in this respect a written complaint was filed with D.C.P. on 07/05/2015."
In terms of the above-mentioned averments, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant, with her associates, trespassed into the suit property by breaking open the locks of the suit ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 25 of 65 property in absence of the Plaintiff on 30.04.2015 and when the Plaintiff confronted the Defendant, she was threatened that her husband would be implicated in a false rape case. She has stated that the Plaintiff again visited the suit property on 01.05.2015 at 2:00pm, alongwith her husband and father in law and they were confined inside the house by locking the internal door and they were threatened, if they did not settle the matter, the Plaintiff's husband and father in law would be implicated in a false rape case. It is further stated that the Defendant's associate brought the typed and blank documents alongwith stamp papers and forcefully obtained the signatures of the Plaintiff and her father in law.
7.1.5. The burden of proof of the afore-mentioned averments, in terms of Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is upon the Plaintiff as the case of the Plaintiff's case would fail if no evidence at all is given on either side. The Plaintiff has lead her evidence and appeared as the sole witness in the matter. The afore-mentioned contentions of the plaint are reiterated in the examination-in-chief of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's entire evidence about the incidents, of trespassing, threats about implicating the Plaintiff's family members in a false rape case and the signatures being obtaining forcibly, is oral. The Plaintiff has produced only two documents in her evidence, Exhibit PW-1/1, i.e., the sale deed in her favour and Mark-A, i.e., copy of the Police Complaint dated 07.05.2015. The title of the Plaintiff, in any case, is not disputed and therefore, only relevant document for the ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 26 of 65 adjudication of this Issue is Mark-A. 7.1.6. Mark-A is copy of the Police complaint dated 07.05.2015.
The original acknowledged copy, bearing the stamp of Police Station, has not been produced. Mark-A does not contain any diary number. It has also not been explained as to why the copy bearing original acknowledgment has not been filed and no foundation for leading secondary evidence has been laid down, in so far as the proof of Mark-A is concerned. The Plaintiff has stated in the written statement, filed in the Defendant's suit that the Plaintiff has also filed an Application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure, Code, 1973. The Defendant has denied that the Plaintiff has filed or pursued any such complaint or an application under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure, Code, 1973. The Plaintiff also did not summon or examine the Official witness from Police Station for proving the filing of aforesaid complaint dated 07.05.2015. The Plaintiff has not even filed any copy, certified copy of any proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 nor has summoned or sought production of the record of any such application being filed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff has not proved that she has filed the complaint Mark-A on 07.05.2015. Even though the Plaintiff has not proved the police complaint dated 07.05.2015, i.e., Mark-A, against the Defendant, however the aforesaid document has been filed and relied upon by the Plaintiff, therefore, the averments of the same would be an admission of fact against ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 27 of 65 the Plaintiff.
7.1.7. The question of proof of the incidents, stated by the Plaintiff, has to be examined on the strength of the aforementioned oral averments of the Plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has stated that the Plaintiff has reiterated in her examination in chief the contentions about the incidents of trespassing, threats about implicating the Plaintiff's family members in a rape case and the signatures being obtained forcibly. It is submitted that the Defendant has not challenged the aforesaid statements by the corresponding negative suggestions and therefore, the contentions of incident dated 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 stands proved against the Defendant. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff has been given the generic suggestion about her testimony being false and the same is sufficient to challenge her testimony.
7.1.8. If the cross-examination of the Plaintiff is perused, the same has not been conducted in a very effective manner. The Counsel cross-examining the Plaintiff has merely concluded the same hastily instead of touching the relevant aspects of the matter, which could have effectively put forward the case of the Defendant. The Counsel may have his reasons to cross-examine the Plaintiff in such a fashion, which this Court does not intend to dwell upon and pass a judgment on, however the fact of the matter remains that there are no specific suggestions in the cross-examination in so far as the ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 28 of 65 incidents dated 30.04.2015 and dated 01.05.2015 are concerned. The question is whether the aforesaid incidents stand proved in terms of oral testimony against the Defendant for the reasons of absence of the suggestions alone. The answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative and the reasons are stated hereinafter.
7.1.9. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Sher Mohammad Vs. Mohan Magotra:
2013:DHC:3258", that in civil cases, mere absence of suggestions in the cross-examination does not amount to proof of the facts, which were denied in the pleadings. The relevant part of the observations of the Hon'ble Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"19. ............ However, I am of the opinion that in a civil trial which is based on pleadings, there is no need for such suggestions to be given. The respondent in his written statement had already denied the said payment and it was for the appellant to prove the same. The practice of giving suggestions in cross examination to witnesses is of criminal trials where there are no pleadings and the defence is built up by giving such suggestions. However unfortunately the said practice of criminal trials has crept into the civil trials also to the extent that most of the cross examinations being in the form of suggestions alone and which take considerable time. The purport of cross examination is to challenge the testimony and/or to falsify the witness or his credit worthiness and not to give suggestions to the effect that each and every deposition in examination-in-chief is false. Similarly, a party in a civil trial is not required to in cross examination put its case to the witness as the ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 29 of 65 same as aforesaid already exists in the pleadings."
Therefore, mere absence of suggestions would not come to rescue of the Plaintiff. Even assuming that the aforesaid fact has not been challenged by suggestions, the testimony and evidence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant are to be read as a whole, in order to conclude the factum of proof of their respective contentions. The Defendant has affirmed the contents of written statement in her examination in chief. The Plaintiff has also not specifically confronted the Defendant in the cross-examination with the incidents dated 30.04.2015 and dated 01.05.2015. The Plaintiff has given only one generic suggestion to the Defendant that the Defendant trespassed into the suit property and the signatures of the Plaintiff were obtained forcefully on the threat of implicating the Plaintiff in false cases. The aforesaid suggestion was denied by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has even not suggested that the signatures were obtained upon the threat of implicating the Plaintiff's husband and her father in law in a false rape case, however it was suggested that the Plaintiff would be implicated in a false case, which was not even the case set up by the Plaintiff and further if the aforesaid suggestion is read as admission of the Plaintiff, then the same merely contradicts the case of the Plaintiff. Thus, neither the Plaintiff was given the negative suggestions about the incidents dated 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 nor the specific ingredients of the aforesaid incidents were put forward to the Defendant, in her cross- ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 30 of 65 examination, when she has affirmed to the contrary in her examination in chief. Therefore, the incidents dated 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 are not proved/disproved by mere absence of suggestions by the Counsels in the cross- examination of the Plaintiff as well as that of the Defendant.
7.1.10. More imperatively, this Court is not convinced that even on the basis of unrebutted evidence, the testimony of the Plaintiff would not amount to proof of the alleged incidents dated 30.04.2015 and dated 01.05.2015. The incident, stated by the Plaintiff, is spread out in two parts, first part is the incident dated 30.04.2015 and second part is incident dated 01.05.2015 from 2:00pm onwards.
7.1.11. The first part of the incident: It is stated that the Plaintiff returned after meeting her relative on 30.04.2015 and found the Defendant in possession of the suit property alongwith her associates. It is stated that the Defendant had broken open the locks of the suit property and forcibly gained entry into the house. It is stated that on being confronted, the Defendant threatened the Plaintiff to leave the suit property or else she would implicate the Plaintiff's husband in a false rape case. In the complaint dated 07.05.2015, the incident dated 30.04.2015 is affirmed, however two additional facts are mentioned. Firstly, the time of incident is mentioned around 11:00pm and secondly, the Defendant's associate are described as two wrestlers type persons ('दो पहलवान टाइप'). It is stated that the Plaintiff went to the Police Station, however ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 31 of 65 they refused to take an action by terming it a property dispute and advised the Plaintiff to go to the Court. The aforementioned first part is introductory and provides the background for understanding the second incident, which is stated to have taken place on 01.05.2015.
7.1.12. Second part of incident on 01.05.2015: The Plaintiff has stated that she went to the suit property on 01.05.2015 at 2:00pm to speak to the Defendant and the Plaintiff was accompanied by her husband and her father-in-law. It is stated that the Defendant's associate locked the house from inside and threatened to implicate the Plaintiff's husband and her father-in-law in a false rape case if the Plaintiff did not settle the matter. It is stated that the Defendant asked her associate over the phone to bring typed & blank documents alongwith stamp papers and forcefully obtained the signatures of Plaintiff and her father-in-law on the same. In the police complaint dated 07.05.2015, i.e., Mark-A, the contentions of door being locked by the Defendant's associate was not mentioned and even the threat of rape case was not specifically stated, however it was stated that Defendant and her friend Bimla threatened to tear their clothes and the Plaintiff, her husband and father-in-law, sat there frightened. It is further stated that the Defendant's associate brought the stamp papers and typed papers and also clicked photograph of the Plaintiff and obtained the signatures of the Plaintiff and her father-in-law on stamp papers and typed papers. It is stated that the Plaintiff and her ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 32 of 65 family members went to the Police immediately after being released and she was informed that the Police could not do anything in the matter. The Plaintiff has further stated in complaint dated 07.05.2015, i.e., Mark-A, that the Plaintiff's two gold sets, one gold ring of her husband and cash of Rs.8,000/- was also in the house, in possession of the Defendant.
7.1.13. The Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that she was made to sign blank, typed documents and stamp papers, however, in the complaint she has only referred to stamp papers and typed documents. The Defendant has filed the original documents on record, which are Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 {also Exhibit DW-1/A (colly)}. During admission/denial of the documents, the Plaintiff has admitted her signatures on the aforesaid documents and denied the contents of the same. The Plaintiff has not specifically referred to any document, out of Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5, which was signed in blank and prepared, typed or made subsequent to the signatures. Therefore, it has been established on record that the Plaintiff or her father in law did not sign any blank document and signed the typed and prepared documents, alongwith stamp papers, which are Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6.
7.1.14. The Plaintiff states that she went to the Defendant's place at 2:00pm on the 01.05.2015 alongwith her husband and father- in-law and remained in confinement inside the house, the door being locked internally and the signatures of the Plaintiff and her father-in-law were obtained on the ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 33 of 65 documents, i.e., Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6. The Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 are original documents. The stamp paper of the General Power of Attorney, i.e., Exhibit D-1, is generated/printed on 01.05.2015 at 4:39pm. The stamp paper of Agreement to sell, i.e., Exhibit D-2, is generated/printed on 01.05.2015 at 4:41pm. The Stamp paper of Affidavit, i.e., Exhibit D-3, is printed on 01.05.2014 at 4:42 pm. 7.1.15. The aforesaid documents could not be signed before the stamp papers were obtained. Even if the stamp papers were obtained by 4:42pm, some-time would definitely take to bring the stamp papers to the place of the incident. Even if the aforesaid time is to be treated as less as 15 to 20 minutes, then also as per the version of the Plaintiff, between 2:00pm to 5:00pm on 01.05.2015, the Plaintiff, her husband and her father-in-law were in confinement/captivity of the Defendant. For a duration of about three hours, the Plaintiff and her two male family members were held as hostages by the unarmed Defendant and her female friend Bimla, only at the threat of implicating the Plaintiff's husband and father in law in a false rape case. The Plaintiff and her male companions were stated to be frightened and they did not make any attempt of rescue for three hours. Thereafter, another associate of the Defendant is stated to have joined for taking signatures on documents and stamp papers. After the Plaintiff and her male companions were released from the captivity, they stated to have visited the Police Station ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 34 of 65 and the Official again did not take any action. No attempts for filing a written complaint were made on 30.04.2015 or on 01.05.2015. The written complaint was stated to have filed only after 6 days on 07.06.2015. Though filing of the aforesaid complaint, even on 07.05.2015 and in terms of material on record, there is no action on behalf of the Plaintiff, till the time of filing of the suit against the Defendant. It is stated that the first suit was filed by the Plaintiff in July 2015, which was subsequently withdrawn to file the present suit. No documents have been placed on record in order to infer the date of filing or withdrawal of the aforesaid previous suit or nature of prayers in the same.
7.1.16. There are many contradictions and unanswered questions, even if the aforementioned testimony of the Plaintiff is to be considered as unrebutted. It remains to be explained as to why no immediate written complaint was filed, or as to why no action was taken until filing of the present suit or till July, 2015, when the first suit by the Plaintiff was stated to be filed. Ideally any person, on being dispossessed by house trespass, would at the least call the 100 number, seek assistance of the neighbours, more so when besides the immovable property, the Plaintiff claims that 2 golds sets, one gold ring and cash was also in the house.
7.1.17. Second pertinent aspect is the conduct of the Plaintiff to walk into danger and plan of the Defendant, of which she was already aware of. The case set up is that on 30.04.2015, ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 35 of 65 the Defendant forcibly obtained the possession with the help of the goons (Two wrestlers type persons) and threatened the Plaintiff that she would implicate her husband in a false rape case. The Plaintiff was well aware of the threat and danger, she was running to, however she willing falls into trap and becomes helpless on the threat, which she knew to be exercised by the Defendant. There is no explanation for the aforesaid conduct, if in fact the situation was that serious. It is beyond comprehension as to why would the Plaintiff walks into the trap on the second day, which itself was visible and clear on the first day. Further if the allegations are assumed to be true, it appears equally strange as to why would the Defendant wait for second day, in order to obtain the Plaintiff's signatures by expecting her to visit again next day, when she had the opportunity on the first day itself, as being assisted by the muscle power. The events do not explain an ordinary course of affairs and therefore, are required to explained and proved by cogent evidence.
7.1.18. If the incidents of 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 are taken on their face-value, they translate into multiple grave criminal offences and the loss to the Plaintiff, in terms of the aforesaid acts, was immense, unexpected and of a greater degree. In such a case the Plaintiff cannot be expected to sit silently for the next two months. The explanation of no action assumes importance, in view of the gravity of allegations and comparative loss to the Plaintiff. Even if at the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was overawed by the ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 36 of 65 threat or apprehensions of use of force, once the aforesaid threat or force ceased to operate and the Plaintiff and her family members were released, they still waited for a period of two months to take an action.
7.1.19. The silence of the Plaintiff for a period of two months is a conduct which does not go in sync with the order of ordinary affairs of human life. Though human behaviour varies from person to person, however the law examines such behaviour on the basis of an average prudent person's conduct under the circumstances. Any prudent person in the possession of the situation of the Plaintiff would have immediately availed the legal recourse. If there was some incapacity or disability in approaching the law enforcement agencies or for the Plaintiff not acting swiftly, the same should also have been explained. No such disability or incapacity has been explained by the Plaintiff.
7.1.20. The initiation of action immediately or within reasonable time would certainly add credibility to the conduct of the party, if allegations are serious and the situation of not taking action remains open for forming an adverse inference against the Plaintiff. However mere filing of the complaint immediately or suit immediately would not by itself amount to proof of the allegations and the allegations still remains to be proved by other evidence. The Plaintiff did not even examine her father-in-law or her husband in order to prove the contentions of the forcible signatures and other incidents ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 37 of 65 dated 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015. No reasons have been assigned as to why the aforesaid crucial witnesses are not examined. The sole reason for execution of the documents was threat of implication of the husband and the father is law in a false rape case and therefore, their examination was crucial and non-examination, without assigning any reason, would be equally fatal.
7.1.21. This Court intends to record few additional facts. This Court has examined the signatures of the Plaintiff and her father in law on the documents, i.e., Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6. If the same were obtained by force, the same would include some resistance, some hesitation, however nothing appears from the aforesaid signatures to suggest the same. Further the Plaintiff has stated that signatures of the Plaintiff and her father in law were obtained, however the Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2 also mentioned at the back of the documents the thumb impressions, stated to be of the Plaintiff and her father in law, which have not been denied/explained by the Plaintiff. The address of the Plaintiff in the sale deed Exhibit PW-1/1 is Plot No.162, Chand Nagar, New Delhi - 110018 and the same address is mentioned in the documents, i.e., Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 is the same address. It is indeed surprising as to how did the Defendant know the address of the Plaintiff. The Defendant has stated in the cross- examination that the Plaintiff's father in law used to stay near her residence and he was instrumental to the deal and the factum of the father in law of the Plaintiff being a ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 38 of 65 neighbour of the Defendant has not been denied. Though these facts should ideally have been pointed out by the Defendant in the cross-examination of the Plaintiff and this Court would have given the Plaintiff the benefit of doubt in wake of inconclusive cross-examination of the Plaintiff, however there is one fact emerging on record, which contradicts the conduct/contentions of the Plaintiff to a greater extent.
7.1.22. The Exhibit D-1, Exhibit D-2, Exhibit D-4 and Exhibit D-6 contain the colour passport size photograph of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not stated in the plaint or in examination in chief as to how the photograph of the Plaintiff came into possession of the Defendant and was affixed on the documents in question. In the complaint, i.e., Mark-A, the Plaintiff has stated that the Defendant's associate clicked the photograph of the Plaintiff, while she was in captivity. This Court has examined the photograph of the Plaintiff and she does not appear to be under duress and shockingly, the photograph of the Plaintiff on the documents, Exhibit D-1, Exhibit D-2, Exhibit D-4 and Exhibit D-6 is the same photograph, which was affixed on the registered sale deed dated 30.03.2015 in favour of the Plaintiff. The aforesaid registered sale deed dated 30.03.2015 is Exhibit PW-1/1 and first page of the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 39 of 65 The photograph of the Plaintiff appears on the right bottom corner of above-referred document, which is first page of registered sale deed 30.03.2015, i.e., Ex.PW1/1. The first page, bearing photograph of the parties, in Exhibit D-1, i.e., GPA dated 01.05.2015, is being ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 40 of 65 reproduced hereinbelow:
The photograph of the Plaintiff appears on left hand bottom corner of the above-referred document, i.e., Exhibit D-1 and the aforesaid photo is identical with the photograph of the Plaintiff on the ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 41 of 65 registered sale deed dated 30.03.2015. The first page of the Exhibit D-2, i.e., agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015 is being reproduced hereinbelow The photograph of the Plaintiff appears on left hand bottom corner ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 42 of 65 of the above-referred document, i.e., Exhibit D-2 and the aforesaid photograph is identical to the photograph of the Plaintiff on the registered sale deed dated 30.03.2015. The receipt dated 01.05.2015, i.e., Exhibit D-4 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
The photograph of the Plaintiff is the first photo on the left ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 43 of 65 hand corner of the above-referred document, i.e., Exhibit D-4 and the aforesaid photo is identical to the photo of the Plaintiff on the registered sale deed dated 30.03.2015. Even the Exhibit D-5, which is a Will dated 30.03.2015, bears the same photograph of the Plaintiff.
7.1.23. The Plaintiff admits in her cross-examination that she has not gone to the suit property with her photographs. It is stated by the Plaintiff in Mark-A that her photo was clicked by the Defendant's associate. This Court is unable to believe the co-
incident of such a highest probability that the photograph of the Plaintiff stated to be clicked by the Defendant's associate by placing the Plaintiff in duress/stress/threat and the result of the aforesaid photograph would be identical to the photograph of the Plaintiff on her registered sale deed. Therefore, the aforesaid photograph is not a mere co-incident and is only one of the modes, in which the truth eventually appears on the surface. The aforesaid photograph cannot be affixed on the documents, unless the same has been given by the Plaintiff and thus, existence of the same photograph on the admitted as well as the challenged documents, is final nail in coffin of the already staggering case of the Plaintiff. The version of Plaintiff, in terms of incidents dated 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 is against the ordinary course of affairs and material contradictions in the same remains unexplained. Therefore, this Court does not have any hesitation to hold that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that her signatures were obtained forcefully on the Exhibit D-1 to ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 44 of 65 Exhibit D-6, which leads to only one conclusion that the aforesaid documents were signed by the Plaintiff willingly and with her free consent. The Issue No.1 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
7.2. Issue No. 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP.
7.2.1. The onus to prove this Issue is upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is admitted owner of the suit property. The Defendant is a purchaser under an unregistered agreement to sell and also has filed the suit for specific performance.
7.2.2. The Plaintiff has set up the case that the agreement to sell and other documents in question, i.e., Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5, were executed by coercion and therefore, are not binding upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, being well aware of the documents, did not seek any declaration against the aforesaid documents. Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. The difference between the void and voidable contract is that a void contract is null and void ab-initio, whereas a voidable contract remains valid till the time the same is declared to be void, at the option of the party, whose consent is not freely given. The aforesaid proposition can be traced to the judgment ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 45 of 65 passed by the Full Bench of Privy Council in, "Ramchandra Jivaji Kanago and Ors. Vs. Laxman Shrinivas Naik and Ors.: AIR1945PC54." The relevant observation of the Privy Council are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"4. Having regard to the findings of the High Court which their Lordships find no reason to reject, the main question for determination before the board, as stated already, is whether the suit is barred by Article 91, Limitation Act, If the deed of gift is a void transaction no question of cancelling, or setting it aside, would arise, but if it is only a voidable transaction, that is, a transaction valid until rescinded, then the necessity to set it aside is obvious before possession of the property can be claimed. Mr. Parikh's first argument was that as the transaction in question was brought about by undue influence as found by the Courts in India, it was not voluntary and was therefore void as a gift within the meaning of Section 122, T.P. Act, This argument cannot be accepted. Though the transaction was induced by undue influence it does not necessarily follow that it was not made "voluntarily." As held by the learned Judges of the High Court, it is clear to their Lordships that Appaji wished to make a gift and acted "voluntarily" in making it. Circumstances brought out in the evidence amply support this view. Appaji was a delicate boy. In 1915, he was only 20. He suffered from epilepsy. Before he made the gift he had been travelling from place to place in search of health and visiting temples. At about the time of the gift he must have realised that his health was not improving and that the prospect of having any issue was becoming more and more uncertain. It was then that he made the gift to his sister in 1915. The opinion of the High Court that he was in no ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 46 of 65 way an idiot or weak-minded intellectually though he was under the influence of his sister and her husband, cannot be controverted in view of the evidence in the case. In these circumstances, their Lordships do not find any sufficient reason to differ from the opinion of the High Court that Appaji made the gift "voluntarily." The transaction is therefore not void, but only voidable as induced by undue influence and requires to be set aside before the properties conveyed by it could be claimed by Appaji or by anyone claiming through him."
7.2.3. Since the contract in the present case is stated to voidable, therefore in terms of Section 19 of the Act, the Plaintiff has to exercise the option of getting it declared as void. The Plaintiff has not sought any prayers for cancellation of Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 or more specifically Exhibit D-2. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held in, "Tuboti Venkateswarlu and Ors. Vs. Rayasam Madhava Rao and Ors.: 2022(4)ALD400: MANU/AP/0020/2022", that a party can-not obtain consequential relief against the voidable contract/instrument, unless it seeks declaration/cancellation of such instrument. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"29. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi and Another vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others MANU/SC/1267/2010 : (2010) 15 SCC 207 and the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sannidhi Ratnavathi vs. Arava Narasimha Murthy and Another MANU/AP/0009/2003 : AIR ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 47 of 65 2004 AP 29, are essentially on the same lines.
30. These judgments have effectively held that in the case of a void document, a party assailing such a document need not seek its cancellation or a declaration that the said document is not binding on the said party. Such a situation does not arise in the case of a voidable document. To ascertain whether the said document is void or voidable, a look at Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads as follows, is necessary:
19. Voidability of agreements without free consent.
When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
A party to a contract whose consent was caused by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks fit, insist that the contract shall be performed, and that he shall be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true.
Exception:
If such consent was caused by misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent within the meaning of section 17, the contract, nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whose consent was so caused had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.
Explanation:
A fraud or misrepresentation which did not cause the consent to a contract of the party on whom such fraud was practiced, or to whom such misrepresentation was made, does not render a contract voidable.
31. The contention of the Plaintiffs is that the deed of settlement marked as Exhibit B-3, was obtained by fraud and coercion. This would place the document ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 48 of 65 in the category of voidable documents as set out in section 19 of the Contract Act. This would mean that the plaintiffs cannot seek recovery of possession without seeking to set aside the said document. No such prayer has been made and consequently, the suit would have to be dismissed.' Therefore, it was imperative on the Plaintiff to seek cancellation of such of Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 or at least of the Exhibit D-2, i.e., of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015, if it was voidable, in order to exercise of option getting the same adjudged as null and void. The Plaintiff has not sought any such prayer of cancellation.
7.2.4. The Plaintiff, in terms of the Issue No.1, has failed to prove that agreement to sell was executed forcefully and this Court has concluded that the aforesaid agreement to sell has been executed willingly. The agreement to sell in question is unregistered and executed subsequent to the year 2001 and therefore, even if the same is treated to be valid, the possession of the Defendant is not protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Defendant does not have any right to be in possession of the suit property, until the sale deed is executed in her favour after grant of specific performance. This Court is granting the specific performance of the agreement to sell in question, which is being discussed under Issue No. 3 in Civ DJ No.468/2018. Once the Defendant is being granted the specific performance, she becomes entitled to obtain/retain ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 49 of 65 the possession and get the sale deed executed. Therefore, directing the Defendant in such a case to handover the possession first, to be again obtained in the execution of the decree for specific performance, would result in creating difficulties for execution of the decree of specific performance and such a course would defeat the interests of justice. Thus, this Court is not inclined to direct the Defendant to handover the possession of the suit property in order to again receive the same in execution of the decree for specific performance. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not entitled to decree for possession and the Issue No.2 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
7.3. Issue No. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 7.3.1. The Issue No.3 is consequential to the Issue No.1 and 2.
Since the Issue No.1 and 2 have been decided against the Plaintiff, therefore, the Issue No.3 is also decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
7.4. Issue No. 4: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite mesne profits @ Rs.6,000/-
per month from the Defendant? OPP 7.4.1. Since the substantive prayer of the possession is being ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 50 of 65 declined to the Plaintiff, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim any mesne profits. Therefore, the Issue No.4 is being decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
7.5. Issue No. 5: If Issue No.4 is decided in favour of the
Plaintiff, whether the Plaintiff is
entitled to pendente-lite and future
interest, if so, at what rate? OPP.
7.5.1. The Issue No.5 is dependent upon the Issue No. 4. Since the Issue No.4 has been decided against the Plaintiff, therefore, the Issue No.5 is also decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
8. Conclusion on Issues in the Civ DJ No. 468/2018 and reasons for such conclusions:
8.1. Issue No. 1: Whether the defendant' signatures were obtained forcefully by the plaintiff on the blank sale documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, Will and possession letter, all dated 01.05.2015, if so, its effect? OPD 8.1.1. The Issue No.1 in the present suit is identical to the Issue No.1 of the Civ DJ No.613425/2018. The aforesaid Issue has been decided in Civ DJ No.613425/2019. The aforesaid ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 51 of 65 discussion and conclusions are being relied upon herein and are not reproduced in order to avoid repetition. The Issue No.1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the Plaintiff in the present suit.
8.2. Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the sale consideration to the defendant?
OPP 8.2.1. The Defendant has failed to prove that her signatures were forcibly obtained on the Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5. It has thus been proved that the Defendant has willingly executed the Exhibit D-1 to the Exhibit D-5. Once the Exhibit D-1 to D-5 have been proved, their contents have also been proved against the Defendant.
8.2.2. The Exhibit D-2 is the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2025. It is mentioned in recitals of the aforesaid agreement to sell that the Defendant has received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the Plaintiff. The Exhibit D-4 is receipt dated 01.05.2025 and the same records acknowledgment of the Defendant that she has received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash from the Plaintiff. The Defendant has acknowledged the factum of receiving Rs.20,00,000/- in cash by appending her signatures on revenue stamp affixed on the aforesaid receipt.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 52 of 65 8.2.3. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that the cross-
examination of the Plaintiff would reveal that she did not have the financial capability of making payment of Rs.20,00,000/- and therefore, she has not proved that she has paid Rs.20,00,000/- in cash to the Defendant. The Defendant has stated in the cross-examination that she had Rs.5,00,000/- in from her savings and she has borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from her mother and aunt. The Defendant has not described the aforesaid amount in a mathematically perfect manner in the cross-examination, however, the transaction was in cash and the Plaintiff has acknowledged the payment of the same in the agreement to sell as well as in the receipt dated 01.05.2015.
8.2.4. This Court intend to refer here to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:
91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document.
When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 53 of 65 Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 further provides the conditions or circumstances or extent, to which the oral evidence may be given in contradiction to the terms and conditions of the written agreement/instrument. Section 92 of the Act of 1872 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement:
When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Proviso (1): Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, 1[want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
Proviso (2): The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
Proviso (3): The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 54 of 65 Proviso (4): The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.
Proviso (5): Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6): Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts."
8.2.5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has explained Section 91 and Section 92 and the objective of exclusion of oral evidence in contradiction of written agreement in "V. Anantha Raju and Ors. Vs. T.M. Narasimhan and Ors.:
AIR2021SC5342", and the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"21. This Court in the case of Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani MANU/SC/0276/2003 : (2003) 6 SCC 595 has elaborately considered the earlier judgments of this Court on the issue in hand and has held as under:
12. Before we deal with the factual aspects, it would be proper ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 55 of 65 to deal with the plea relating to scope and ambit of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. 13. Section 91 relates to evidence of terms of contract, grants and other disposition of properties reduced to form of document. This Section merely forbids proving the contents of a writing otherwise than by writing itself; it is covered by the ordinary Rule of law of evidence, applicable not merely to solemn writings of the sort named but to others known sometimes as the "best evidence rule". It is in reality declaring a doctrine of the substantive law, namely, in the case of a written contract, that all proceedings and contemporaneous oral expressions of the thing are merged in the writing or displaced by it. (See Thayer's Preliminary Law on Evidence, p. 397 and p. 398; Phipson's Evidence, 7th Edn., p. 546; Wigmore's Evidence, p. 2406.) It has been best described by Wigmore stating that the Rule is in no sense a Rule of evidence but a Rule of substantive law. It does not exclude certain data because they are for one or another reason untrustworthy or undesirable means of evidencing some fact to be proved. It does not concern a probative mental process -- the process of believing one fact on the faith of another. What the Rule does is to declare that certain kinds of facts are legally ineffective in the substantive law; and this of course (like any other ruling of substantive law) results in forbidding the fact to be proved at all. But this prohibition of proving it is merely that dramatic aspect of the process of applying the Rule of substantive law. When a thing is not to be proved at all the Rule of prohibition does not become a Rule of evidence merely because it comes into play when the counsel offers to "prove" it or "give evidence" of it; otherwise, any Rule of law whatever might be reduced to a Rule of evidence. It would become the legitimate progeny of the law of evidence. For the purpose of specific varieties of jural effects -- sale, contract etc. there are specific requirements varying according to the subject. On the contrary there are also certain fundamental elements common to all and capable of being generalised. Every jural act may have the following four elements: (a) the enaction or creation of the act; (b) its integration or embodiment in a single memorial when desired; (c) its solemnization or fulfilment of the prescribed forms, if any; and (d) the interpretation or application of the act to the external objects affected by it.
14. The first and fourth are necessarily involved in every jural act, and second and third may or may not become practically important, but are always possible elements.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 56 of 65
15. The enaction or creation of an act is concerned with the question whether any jural act of the alleged tenor has been consummated; or, if consummated, whether the circumstances attending its creation authorise its avoidance or annulment. The integration of the act consists in embodying it in a single utterance or memorial -- commonly, of course, a written one. This process of integration may be required by law, or it may be adopted voluntarily by the actor or actors and in the latter case, either wholly or partially. Thus, the question in its usual form is whether the particular document was intended by the parties to cover certain subjects of transaction between them and, therefore, to deprive of legal effect all other utterances.
16. The practical consequence of integration is that its scattered parts, in their former and inchoate shape, have no longer any jural effect; they are replaced by a single embodiment of the act. In other words, when a jural act is embodied in a single memorial all other utterances of the parties on the topic are legally immaterial for the purpose of determining what are the terms of their act. This Rule is based upon an assumed intention on the part of the contracting parties, evidenced by the existence of the written contract, to place themselves above the uncertainties of oral evidence and on a disinclination of the courts to defeat this object. When persons express their agreements in writing, it is for the express purpose of getting rid of any indefiniteness and to put their ideas in such shape that there can be no misunderstanding, which so often occurs when reliance is placed upon oral statements. Written contracts presume deliberation on the part of the contracting parties and it is natural they should be treated with careful consideration by the courts and with a disinclination to disturb the conditions of matters as embodied in them by the act of the parties. (See McKelvey's Evidence, p. 294.) As observed in Greenlear's Evidence, p. 563, one of the most common and important of the concrete Rules presumed under the general notion that the best evidence must be produced and that one with which the phrase "best evidence" is now exclusively associated is the Rule that when the contents of a writing are to be proved, the writing itself must be produced before the court or its absence accounted for before testimony to its contents is admitted.
17. It is likewise a general and most inflexible Rule that wherever written instruments are appointed, either by the ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 57 of 65 requirement of law, or by the contract of the parties, to be the repositories and memorials of truth, any other evidence is excluded from being used either as a substitute for such instruments, or to contradict or alter them. This is a matter both of principle and policy. It is of principle because such instruments are in their own nature and origin, entitled to a much higher degree of credit than parol evidence. It is of policy because it would be attended with great mischief if those instruments, upon which men's rights depended, were liable to be impeached by loose collateral evidence. (See Starkie on Evidence, p. 648.)
18. In Section 92 the legislature has prevented oral evidence being adduced for the purpose of varying the contract as between the parties to the contract; but, no such limitations are imposed Under Section 91. Having regard to the jural position of Sections 91 and 92 and the deliberate omission from Section 91 of such words of limitation, it must be taken note of that even a third party if he wants to establish a particular contract between certain others, either when such contract has been reduced to in a document or where under the law such contract has to be in writing, can only prove such contract by the production of such writing.
19. Sections 91 and 92 apply only when the document on the face of it contains or appears to contain all the terms of the contract. Section 91 is concerned solely with the mode of proof of a document with limitation imposed by Section 92 relates only to the parties to the document. If after the document has been produced to prove its terms Under Section 91, provisions of Section 92 come into operation for the purpose of excluding evidence of any oral agreement or statement for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding orsubtracting from its terms. Sections 91 and 92 in effect supplement each other. Section 91 would be inoperative without the aid of Section 92, and similarly Section 92 would be inoperative without the aid of Section 91.
20. The two sections, however, differ in some material particulars. Section 91 applies to all documents, whether they purport to dispose of rights or not, whereas Section 92 applies to documents which can be described as dispositive. Section 91 applies to documents which are both bilateral and unilateral, unlike Section 92 the application of which is confined to only bilateral documents. (See: Bai Hira Devi v. Official Assignee of Bombay [ MANU/SC/0001/1958 : AIR 1958 SC 448].) Both these ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 58 of 65 provisions are based on "best-evidence rule". In Bacon's Maxim Regulation 23, Lord Bacon said "The law will not couple and mingle matters of specialty, which is of the higher account, with matter of averment which is of inferior account in law." It would be inconvenient that matters in writing made by advice and on consideration, and which finally import the certain truth of the agreement of parties should be controlled by averment of the parties to be proved by the uncertain testimony of slippery memory.
21. The grounds of exclusion of extrinsic evidence are: (i) to admit inferior evidence when law requires superior would amount to nullifying the law, and (ii) when parties have deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is conclusively presumed, between themselves and their privies, that they intended the writing to form a full and final statement of their intentions, and one which should be placed beyond the reach of future controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory.
22. This Court in Gangabai v. Chhabubai [ MANU/SC/0385/1981 : (1982) 1 SCC 4 : AIR 1982 SC 20] and Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal [ MANU/SC/0747/1999 : (2000) 1 SCC 434: AIR 2000 SC 426] with reference to Section 92(1) held that it is permissible to a party to a deed to contend that the deed was not intended to be acted upon, but was only a sham document. The bar arises only when the document is relied upon and its terms are sought to be varied and contradicted. Oral evidence is admissible to show that document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties.
22. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the integration of the act consists in embodying it in a single utterance or memorial -- commonly, a written one. This process of integration may be required by law, or it may be adopted voluntarily by the actor or actors and in the latter case, either wholly or partially. It has been held that the question that is required to be considered is whether the particular document was intended by the parties to cover certain subjects of transaction between them to ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 59 of 65 deprive of legal effect of all other utterances. It has been further held that the practical consequence of integration is that its scattered parts, in their former and inchoate shape, have no longer any jural effect and they are replaced by a single embodiment of the act. It has been held that when a jural act is embodied in a single memorial, all other utterances of the parties on the topic are legally immaterial for the purpose of determining what are the terms of their act. It has been held that when persons express their agreements in writing, it is for the express purpose of getting rid of any indefinite ness and to put their ideas in such shape that there can be no misunderstanding, which so often occurs when reliance is placed upon oral statements. It has been observed that the written contracts presume deliberation on the part of the contracting parties and it is natural that they should be treated with careful consideration by the courts and with a disinclination to disturb the conditions of matters as embodied in them by the act of the parties. It has been held that the written instruments are entitled to a much higher degree of credit than oral evidence.
23. This Court has further held that Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act would apply only when the document on the face of it contains or appears to contain all the terms of the contract. It has been held that after the document has been produced to prove its terms Under Section 91, the provisions of Section 92 come into operation for the purpose of excluding evidence of any oral agreement or statement for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting from its terms. It has been held that it would be inconvenient that matters in writing made by advice and on consideration, and which finally import the certain truth of the agreement of parties should be controlled by averment of the parties to be proved by the uncertain testimony of slippery memory. It has been held that when parties deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 60 of 65 conclusively presumed, between themselves and their privies, that they intended the writing to form a full and final statement of their intentions, and one which should be placed beyond the reach of future controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory.
(Underlining Added) Thus, oral evidence against the terms of a written document, in order to be admissible, has to fall within the purview of provisos to Section 92 of the Act of 1872. The Defendant has stated that aforesaid documents, i.e., Exhibit D-1 to D-6 were executed by forcibly obtaining her signatures and placing her under threat, which falls within the first proviso to the aforesaid provision. However, the Defendant has failed to prove her contentions and it has been held in the Issue No.1 that the Defendant has willingly signed and executed the documents, i.e., Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6. The Defendant does not explain her admission as to why did she sign the documents, if she had not received the payment. As discussed hereinabove, the only manner in which the Defendant could have explained her admission was proving the allegations of forcible signatures, which she has failed and therefore, the Defendant cannot be permitted to contradict the terms of the documents, i.e., of Exhibit D-2 and Exhibit D-4, which have been proved against her.
8.2.6. Further, the onus to prove the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- is only on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The Plaintiff has stated that she has made payment of the cash ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 61 of 65 and a substantive part of the same is stated to be borrowed from her relatives. The Plaintiff has proved the agreement to sell as well as the receipt in acknowledgment of the payment, received by the Defendant.
8.2.7. The Defendant has purchased the suit property through sale deed dated 30.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.18,40,000/- and it is mentioned in the sale deed that Rs.13,40,000/- were paid in cash. If the Defendant could make substantive payment in cash one month before transaction, she could also accept the payment in cash. The Defendant has been cross-examined on the aspects of purchase of the suit property and it is evident from her cross-examination that she neither visited the suit property nor has met with the purchaser prior to execution of the sale deed nor is she aware of the title chain of the suit property. Though the title of the Defendant is not in dispute, however it can be concluded from her cross-examination that the transaction between the Defendant and the erstwhile owner for purchase of the suit property was conducted only through her father-in law. The Plaintiff in her cross- examination also states that the transaction between her and Defendant was conducted through her father in law, who was neighbour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not dispute that her father in law was not neighbour of the Plaintiff. Further the Defendant has not examined her father in law to prove that the transaction has not been conducted through him or money was not so received by the Defendant.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 62 of 65 8.2.8. The Defendant has taken up a false plea of her signatures being obtained by force and by exercising threats of implicating her family members in a false rape case. This Court has discussed in details in discussion under Issue No.1 of the Civ DJ No.613425/2016 that the aforementioned contentions of the Defendant were proven to be false. It has thus been established on record that the Defendant executed the Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 in favour of the Plaintiff and handed over the possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff. Such a course of events does not result in without receiving money by the buyer. The Defendant has executed the receipt of payment in favour of the Plaintiff. In such a case, the onus shifts to the Defendant to explain as to why would she execute the documents and acknowledge the payment thereunder, if the sale consideration was not received. The Defendant does not have any explanation to offer except one, which has already been held as patently false, in terms of discussion under Issue No.1. Therefore, the scale of preponderance of probabilities is titled towards the Plaintiff, in so far as the payment in question is concerned and the Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
8.3. Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
decree of specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015, as
prayed for? OPP
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 63 of 65 8.3.1. The Plaintiff has proved that she has entered into the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015 with the Defendant. The Defendant has failed to prove that her signatures on the agreement to sell were obtained forcibly. The Plaintiff has further proved, in terms of the agreement to sell and receipt dated 01.05.2015, i.e., Exhibit D-2 and Exhibit D-4 that she has paid the sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- to the Defendant. The agreement to sell does not mention the period, within which the sale deed is to be executed. Though the present suit has been filed, subsequent to the filing of a suit for possession, however the suit has been filed within the period of three years from the date of execution of the agreement to sell in question and therefore is within limitation. After payment of the sale consideration, nothing much remains to be performed by the Plaintiff, in so far as the readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff is concerned. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015. The Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
9. Relief/Final Decision:
i. The Civil Suit No.613425/2016, titled as, "Sonia Vs. Simran" is dismissed. The decree sheet be drawn accordingly. The decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 64 of 65 ii. The Civil Suit No.468//2018, titled as, "Simran Vs. Sonia"
is decreed and a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015 is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant is directed to execute a registered sale deed of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff, in terms of agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015. The decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL CHANDHEL
CHANDHEL Date: 2025.06.09
17:09:49 +0530
Announced in the open Court (ANIL CHANDHEL)
today on 9th of June, 2025 DISTRICT JUDGE-04
WEST DISTRICT
THC/DELHI/09.06.2025
________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 65 of 65