Delhi District Court
Mrs. Bimla Devi vs Sh. Sham Swaroop Thapar on 12 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE CENTRAL-09: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 1018/08.
U.I.D.No. 02401C0821362003.
Mrs. Bimla Devi,
W/o. Sh. L.R. Verma,
R/o. 59/60, Rampuri, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019. .............Plaintiff
Versus.
01. Sh. Sham Swaroop Thapar,
S/o. Late Sh. Lal Chand Thapar
R/o. 1853-D-II/10 Govindpuri Extension
New Delhi 1100019.
02. Sh. Madan Lal Thapar
S/o. Late Sh. Lal Chand
03. Sh. Tirath Ram Thapar
S/o. Late Sh. Lal Chand
04. Sh. Sushil Kumar Thapar
S/o. Late Sh. Hanbans Lal Thapar
05. Sh. Shashi Kumar Thapar
S/o. Late Sh. Harbans Lal Thapar
Defendants 2-5 all residents of
K-48 AB, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110 019.
06. Land & Development Officer,
Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi. ................Defendants
CS No. 1018/08
Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 1
Date of institution of the suit : 27.05.2003.
Date of reservation of judgment : 05.02.2013.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.02.2013.
EX PARTE JUDGMENT.
1.This is a suit for specific performance of contract, mandatory and perpetual injunction and damages filed by the plaintiff.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are :
(a) Defendant no.1 represented and held out to the plaintiff that by a perpetual lease deed dated 28.02.1963 registered as document no.
1676 in Additional book no.1, Volume No.943, at pages 125 to 127 registered before the Sub-Registrar, the President of India acting through the Land & Development Officer granted leasehold rights in respect of residential plot of land measuring 200 sq. yds. commonly known and bearing Municipal No.K48AB, Kalkaji, New Delhi in favour of Smt.Gurdevi Thapar, wife of Sh.Lal Chand Thapar. The predecessor-in-interest built over the suit plot of land his residential edifice.
(b) Smt.Gurdevi Thapar expired in 1989 leaving behind a Will dated 27.03.1986, whereby she bequeathed the said property in favour of defendants. On the basis of the said Will, defendants No.1 to 5 made representations to defendant no.6 who by their Communication No.L&DO/PS-111/215 dated 10.04.1996 mutated the said leasehold rights in the plot in favour of defendants no.1 to 5.
(c) Defendant no.1 thus acquired leasehold undivided rights to 25% in the said plot of land and absolute ownership to the said residential edifice built on the said plot of land to the extent of 25%.
(d) By an agreement dated 06.01.2001 defendant no. 1 agreed to
CS No. 1018/08
Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 2
sell, convey and transfer all his undivided right, title and interest in the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share in the said property alongwith proportionate undivided, indivisible leasehold rights in the land underneath with the right to usage of ameneties/services attached thereto for a total consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- and the said consideration was paid by the plaintiff to defendant no.1.
(e) Defendant no.1 had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh.L.R.Verma son of Sh.Ganga Dan registered before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi on 14.05.1999. Defendant no.1 agreed that said Sh.L.R.Verma, nominee of the plaintiff, shall have powers to do all acts, deeds and things in the name of defendant no.1, in furtherance of the said agreement to sell. The said Power of Attorney is against consideration as set out in the agreement to sell dated 06.06.2001. Defendant also executed a receipt, Will, Special Power of Attorney, Indemnity Bond of dated 06.06.2001 alongwith other documents executed on the same date. He was further obliged to execute all other and further documents to perfect the title of the plaintiff to the suit property. Defendant no.1 also declared that he had delivered the constructive and symbolic possession of the suit property being subject matter of the Agreement to the plaintiff.
(f) Plaintiff approached defendant no.1 several times and requested him to perform his part of obligations under the said Agreement to Sell and complete that transaction by executing a Conveyance Deed in favour of the plaintiff. However, defendant no.1 took no steps for performing obligation under the said Agreement and kept on delaying the mater on one pretext or the other.
(g) On 20.05.2003, plaintiff came to know that the defendants were planning to sell the entire property and had been contacting property dealers of the area for the said purpose. Plaintiff conveyed to CS No. 1018/08 Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 3 defendant no.1 that she was ready and willing to the requisite charges and requested to defendant no.1 to perform his obligations under the Agreement to Sell. Defendant no.1 has failed to respond to various calls and has failed to comply the requests made to him. Thus, defendant no.1 has failed and neglected to discharge his part of the obligation.
(h) Thus, the present suit has been filed claiming the relief of Specific Performance of contract, mandatory and perpetual injunction and damages.
3. Written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 wherein defendant no.1 denied the averments of the plaint except that the Predecessor in interest of the defendants have made residential edifice at the property. It is also admitted that the property was mutated in the name of Smt.Gurdevi, mother of defendant no.1. It is also admitted that Smt.Gurdevi died in the year 1989 and had executed a Will. It is also admitted that defendant no.1 signed the Power of Attorney in favour of Sh.L.R.Verma. It is further denied that defendant no.1 never undertook he would claim right, title or interest in respect of suit property. Rather, it is submitted that the agreement is without any consideration hit by public policy and question to effect upon the same does not arise. Rest of the averments of the plaintiff are also denied by defendant no.1 in his written statement.
4. In written statement filed by defendant no.2 to 5, wherein it is objected that Sh.Rajeev Thapar son of defendant no.1 is a necessary party to the present suit. It is further stated that initially the property was in the name of Sh.Lal Chand Thapar who died in the year 1969 and at that time defendant no.1 alone could not inherit 1/4th share in the estate left CS No. 1018/08 Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 4 by late Sh.Lal Chand Thapar. It is further stated that immediately on death of Sh.Lal Chand Thapar, Sh. Rajeev Thapar inherited 1/2 share of the 1/4th share which was to go to the share of defendant no.1. It is further stated that under these circumstances, defendant no.1 could not enter into an agreement for sale of 1/4th share of property. It is further stated that suit property is ancestral property inherited by the parties including Sh.Rajeev Thapar jointly and there is no partition whether legal or otherwise between the parties as such defendant no.1 could not enter into an agreement for transfer of 1/4 th undivided share in the joint family property. It is further stated that agreement is hit by provisions of Section 44 of Transfer of Property Act. It is further objected that agreement is against public policy and hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
5. In written statement filed by defendant no.6, wherein similar averments as mentioned by other defendants, have been made out. It is further stated that on the basis of the Will left by Smt.Gurdevi, the property was divided floor wise and there was no mention of individual share. It is further objected that division of property is not allowed and it was decided that all the lessees shall have equal share of the property.
6. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 24.10.2008 framed following issues :
1. "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement dated 06.06.2001 in relation to the undivided share constituted in part and parcel in property no.K-48, AB, Kalkaji, New Delhi ? OPP.
2. Whether the defendant is liable to be restrained from selling alienating, transfer or creating third party interest in respect of his undivided share in the suit property ? OPP.
3. Whether the agreement dated 06.06.2001 is without any consideration ? OPD.CS No. 1018/08
Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 5
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as an alternative to the specific performance ? OPP.
6. Relief."
7. Defendant no.1 was proceeded ex parte by order dated 18.10.2010. An application was moved by defendant no.1 under Order 9 rule 7 of CPC for setting aside ex parte order. The said application was also dismissed in default vide order dated 18.07.2011 passed by my ld.Predecessor. Other defendants were also proceeded ex parte by order dated 18/10/2010 passed by ld.Predecessor. Defendant moved further application under Section 151 of CPC for setting aside the order dated 18/07/2011 for restoration of the application under Order 9 Rule
7 read with Section 151 of CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This court by order dated 19/11/2012 dismissed the said application of the defendant subject to payment of cost. However, the cost has not been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. No challenge to the said order and, therefore, the said order becomes final.
8. To prove its case, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. She further examined Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Dealing Assistant, Land & Development Office, Ministry of Urban Developments, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi as PW-2, who has stated that a substitution letter no.L&DO/PS-III dated 16.04.1996 in respect of suit property No.K-48 AB, Kalkaji, New Delhi in the name of Sh.Madan Lal Thapar, Tirath Nath Thapar, Shyam Swaroop Thapar S/o.late Sh.Lal Chand Thapar to the extent of 24.11% each undivided share and Sh.Sushil Kumar Thapar S/o.late Sh.Harbans Lal Thapar to the extent of 15.62% undivided share, Sh.Shashi Kumar Thapar S/o.late Sh.Harbans Lal Thapar to the extent of 12.5% undivided share jointly, was issued. The said document is CS No. 1018/08 Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 6 already on record as Ex.PW-1/1. It is further stated by PW-2 that the said substitution was carried out on the basis of an application applied by the co-lessees including the defendant after death of Smt.Gurdevi Thapar, on the basis of registered Will in favour of three sons and two grandsons on the basis of copy of Will Ex.PW-2/1. The said property was leased out in the name of Sh.Lal Chand S/o.Sh.Amir Chand on 28.02.1963. This document is already on record as Ex.PW-1/D-1. Thereafter, vide separate statement, the plaintiff closed P.E. Defendant did not examine any witness as they were remained ex parte.
9. I have gone through the entire record of the case, including pleadings of the parties, evidence led by the parties and documents brought on the record. I have also heard Sh. M. S. Anis, ld counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Vimal Anand, ld counsel for the defendant.
10. To prove her case, the plaintiff heavily relied upon Ex. PW1/2 i.e. agreement to sell executed between the parties and Ex. PW1/3 i.e. receipt according to which the payment was received by defendant no. 1 whereby it was agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff herself that the suit property comprises 1/4th undivided share in property no. K-48 AB, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110 019 called proportionate, undivided and indivisible leasehold rights in the land underneath. In clause 1 of this agreement, there is mention about the payment of entire consideration of Rs. 9 lacs. In clause 3 of this agreement Ex. PW1/2, it is mentioned that the defendant had delivered constructive and symbolic possession of the said property to the plaintiff. Ex. PW1/A is perused wherein the similar facts have been stated. It is not mentioned in Ex. PW1/2 that which portion of the suit property came into possession of the plaintiff. It is also not stated even CS No. 1018/08 Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 7 in the plaint that the plaintiff is in possession of any specific portion of the suit property. Moreover, in clause 1, there is only mention about payment of consideration of Rs. 9 lacs by the plaintiff to the defendant. There is space in clause 1 of Ex. PW1/2 wherein through ball point pen someone has written 'cash against Receipt Dt - 06th June 2001.' The cash receipt is Ex. PW1/3. Again there is space between the lines of this document wherein by blue ball point pen, someone has written about the denomination of currency notes. However, nowhere in the evidence of the plaintiff, it is mentioned that who had written in both these documents the handwritten portion. Though, signatures of defendant no. 1 had taken in the right hand space against the said writing but who had written the said writing in Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3 not explained.
11. It is not stated by the plaintiff anywhere that the said amount was either lying in his house or she has withdrawn from any of the bank.
12. It is not case of the plaintiff that she had withdrawn the amount of Rs.9 lacs from any bank. She also not able to state from whom such a big amount was collected by her. She has not stated or explained or disclosed as to how she had arranged such a huge amount of Rs. 9 lacs in cash. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that she got any financial help from anybody to arrange such a huge amount in cash especially in the year 2001 when such huge amount was having a considerable value though it is a big amount even today. The conduct of the plaintiff, at the sake of repetition observes by this court, is under suspicion inasmuch as it is not explained why such a huge amount was given by her in cash only.
CS No. 1018/08Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 8
13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a recent case titled as Neha Khalxo Vs. Saramma Kuriakose 188 (2012) Delhi Law Times 164 has relied upon :
"14. This case is squarely covered by the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the following cases:-
His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar, (1996) 4 SCC 526 - The Supreme Court held as under:-
"2. There is a distinction between readiness to perform the contract and willingness to perform the contract. By readiness may be meant the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his financial position to pay the purchase price. For determining his willingness to perform his part of the contract, the conduct has to be properly scrutinised. There is no documentary proof that the plaintiff had ever funds to pay the balance of consideration. Assuming that he had the funds, he has to prove his willingness to perform his part of the contract. According to the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was to supply the draft sale deed to the defendant within 7 days of the execution of the agreement, i.e., by 27.2.1975. The draft sale deed was not returned after being duly approved by the petitioner. The factum of readiness and willingness to perform plaintiffs part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The facts of this case would amply demonstrate that the petitioner/plaintiff was not ready nor had the capacity to perform his part of the contract as he had no financial capacity to pay the consideration in cash as contracted and intended to bide for the time which disentitles him as time is of the essence of the contract." (Emphasis supplied) N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, AIR 1996 SC 116 - The Supreme Court held that to adjudge whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the Court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of balance sale consideration must be proved to be available with the purchaser right from the date of execution till the date of decree. The Court upheld the dismissal of the suit for specific performance on various grounds inter alia that the plaintiff was dabbing in real estate business without means to purchase the suit property and the very contract was speculative in nature. The relevant findings are reproduced hereunder:-
"5. ...Section 16(c) of the Act envisages that plaintiff must plead and prove that he had performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than those terms the performance of which has been CS No. 1018/08 Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 9 prevented or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit alongwith other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution till date of the decree he must prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his part of the contract. As stated, the factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract."
(Emphasis supplied) Conduct of the plaintiff
15. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Supreme Court noted as under:-
"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. „Satya' (truth) and „Ahimsa' (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
In Padmawati and Ors. v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, 154 (2008) DLT 411, this Court noted as under:
"6. The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds that using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such CS No. 1018/08 Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 10 litigants which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the Courts. One of the aim of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all cases should be the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person."
"9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for over- flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must b e made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts." (Emphasis supplied) I agree with the findings by the learned Judge in Padmawati's case (supra) and wish to add a few words. There is another feature which has been observed and it is of unscrupulous persons filing false claims or defences with a view that the other person would get tired and would then agree to compromise with him by giving up some right or paying some money. If the other party is not able to continue contesting the case or the Court by reason of falsehood falls into an error, the wrong succeeds. Many times, the other party compromises, or at other times, he may continue to fight it out. But as far as the party in the wrong is concerned, as this Court noted in Padmawati's case (supra), even if these litigants ultimately lose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh.
In the present case, the conduct of the plaintiff does not appear to be honest. The plaintiff has raised a false plea with the hope that the plaintiff can, with the Court delays, drag the case for years and the other side would succumb to buy peace. If the other side does not so settle in the end, they are hardly compensated and remains a loser."CS No. 1018/08
Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 11
14. In Bishambhar Nath Agrawal Vs. Kishan Chand and others IR 1998 Allahabad 195, the Hon'ble High Court has held that :
"...................He was suggested at the close of his cross-examination that they had no arrangement of money for taking the sale deed and that Vishnu Ram Nagar and Permanand Puri also had no arrangement of money. He of course, made a denial of the suggestions but his denial can hardly be taken at its face value"
15. Similarly, in the present case also plaintiff is not able to prove that she was having arrangement of money for payment of consideration as mentioned in Ex. PW1/2.
16. In Erikkil Thavatha Basheer Vs. Poopurambath Kaithal Khadeeja AIR 2001 Kerala 346, it was held by Hon'ble High Court that :
"..................During examination, he has admitted that he was having bank accounts in three different banks. But he has not produced the pass books in respect of the accounts or other documents. In the circumstances it cannot be found that the appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract"
17. Moreover, in earlier judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held in Mahesh Kumar Wadhwa Vs. Bimal Luthra 2009 (107) DRJ 271 passed by the Hon'ble High Court wherein it was observed :
"D. There is also no explanation as to why
such large sums of monies were transacted in
cash.
E. The plaintiff has not filed a single
document to show the availability of cash in such large volume with him on the dates alleged.
F. A party who transacts in such casual manner, does so at his own peril. The purport of Order 37 is to provide benefit of summary procedure to plaintiffs who take care to have their transactions properly documented in accordance with law. The summary procedure is intended to encourage due recording / documentation in the course of trade / commerce. A person who while lending / advancing money makes as proper valid CS No. 1018/08 Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 12 bill of exchange hundi, promissory note or a contract was intended to be bestowed advantage of quicker recovery of money without protracted trial. A party to avail of such significant benefit ought to take care in the making and execution of the document and lend money by cheque only, so as to eliminate defences of denial. The abridgement of procedure of trial for adjudication of factual disputes in Order 37 is an exception and cannot be extended to cases where the document itself is suspect or leaves scope for denial of receipt of money. The banking sector has developed immensely in the country over the years, with all having access to the banks. In these modern times transactions in large sums of monies, in cash and through non banking channels will always remain open to challenge and cannot claim preference in procedure for adjudication. To hold otherwise would be to give encouragement to such transactions, which otherwise need to be curbed. With the introduction of Section 138 in the Negotiable Instruments Act, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that normally post dated cheques in refund of monies lent/advanced are taken. Even if the plaintiff was lending money in cash, the plaintiff in the normal course would have been expected to take cheques for refund. All these circumstances, in the present case lead me to the conclusion aforesaid. Nothing said here should however be understood as laying down that Order 37 CPC would not be applicable wherever transaction is in cash. If the cash is explained and supported by other documents, action would lie. However, in this case notwithstanding specific plea in leave to defend application that the plaintiff had no means and had not disclosed the said monies in his income tax returns, the plaintiff has in his reply evaded answering the said pleas and also not filed any document to controvert the same. There cannot be two stands permitted to any party, one for purposes of taxation and other for litigation."
In a recent judgment in Mahavir Singh Vs. Joginder Singh 2012 VIII AD (DELHI) 249, in para 5, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held :
"5. Keeping in view the fact that neither the original documents have been filed nor has the plaintiff explained the source of the huge amounts, he claims to have paid in cash to the CS No. 1018/08 Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 13 defendant, no prima facie, case is made out either with respect to the execution of the agreement for sale of the suit property or with respect to the payment of Rs. 56,50,000/- except to the extent of Rs. 5 lac which has been admitted by the defendant, whose case is that the aforesaid amount was taken by him as loan from the plaintiff."
In the present case also, no original document regarding the title of the suit was given to the plaintiff by the defendant. As already observed herein above, the source of the huge amount of Rs. 9 lac has also not been explained by the plaintiff.
18. Again very surprising fact is noted by this court that it is mentioned in clause 'c' of page 1 of agreement Ex. PW1/2 that the plaintiff had paid a total consideration of Rs. 9 lacs to the defendant without getting the transfer complete and also without having received the complete possession of the property from the defendant. Though, it is mentioned that symbolic possession was given to the plaintiff but surprisingly no such possession letter has been brought on the record and in such circumstances, the court has to draw an inference that no such possession letter was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. For the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that the possession was received by the plaintiff from the defendant then when the plaintiff lost the possession why she did not exercise control being possessor of the property. Moreover, it is also not explained by the plaintiff for which portion of the property, the plaintiff had exercised the possession. Admittedly, the property is ad measuring 200 sq. yards. If the property is having staircase then definitely this property must be a multistory property. Then which portion of the property the plaintiff had received constructive and symbolic possession, is not explained.
CS No. 1018/08Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 14
19. In such circumstances, the court has to draw inference that the parties were not in transaction regarding any agreement to sell as projected by the plaintiff but this court is of the considered opinion that Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3 were sham documents and might be got signature by the plaintiff of the defendant for some ulterior purpose which has not been brought before the court. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any specific performance and as such the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. There is no order of cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Jitendra Kumar Mishra) court on 12/02/2013. Additional District Judge-09 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi CS No. 1018/08 Bimla Devi Vs. Sham Swaroop Thapar Page 15