Delhi District Court
Shri Ajeet Singh vs Sh. Vinod Kumar on 15 January, 2020
`IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE05,
SOUTH WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 162/18
IN THE MATTER OF :
Shri Ajeet Singh
S/o. Sh. Dharam Pal,
R/o. Village & P.O. Office
Mitraon, Najafgarh,
New Delhi110043
........ Plaintiff
versus
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o. Sh. Ram Kumar
R/o. RZ126X, New Roshan Pura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Vikram
S/o. Sh. Nathu Lal
R/o. 12A, Uggarsain Park, Nangloi Road
Najafgarh, New Delhi110043.
3. Sh. Rohtash,
S/o. Sh. Daya Nana,
R/o. V.P.O. Dhanana,
District Sonepat, Haryana.
........ Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 32
Initial date of Institution : 06.05.2011
Date of Institution in this Court : 17.02.2018
Date of hearing of arguments : 10.01.2020
Date of pronouncing judgment : 15.01.2020
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Initially the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant no.1 (Sh. Vinod Kumar) in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, SouthWest, Dwarka, New Delhi. The defendant nos. 2 & 3 were impleaded later on. The plaintiff thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint which was allowed by the Ld. Civil Judge on 11.04.2017 and after amendment the value of the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction came at Rs.10 Lakhs which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. Civil Judge and hence the plaint was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to be presented it before the competent court of jurisdiction and CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 32 consequently the suit was assigned to this Court by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, South West, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the lawful owner and in possession of the property bearing No. 154, measuring 150 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 84/8, situated in the area village Mitraon, Najafgarh Abadi, known as Gopal Nagar Extension, BBlock, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") having purchased the same from its previous owner Sh. Indraj for a sale consideration of Rs.23,500/ through legally executed documents dated 15.06.1988 including General Power Attorney (GPA), Agreement to sell, Receipt and Affidavit and peaceful vacant possession of the suit property was delivered to him on 15.06.1988 and since then he is in physical possession of the same. The previous owners, namely, Sh. Indraj Singh, Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh from whome the plaintiff had purchased the suit property have also given their affidavits dated 15.04.2011. After purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff constructed the boundary walls of the suit property. On 24.02.2011, at about 3:00 pm when the plaintiff visited the suit property as routine visit, he saw some CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 32 persons putting mud at the suit property. He immediately called the police at 100 number. Police came at the suit property and found one labour and 45 persons there and when they were asked to give the name of the person who asked them to work at the suit property, it was told that it was defendant no.1 who was the owner of the suit property and asked them to work at the suit property. It is stated the defendant no.1 is, in fact, a land Mafia and he alongwith his goonda associates and in connivance with the defendant nos. 2 & 3 wants to grab the suit property of the plaintiff and he has no legal right, title or interest over the suit property or cause interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave a written complaint against the defendant no. 1 to the police on 03.03.2011 but no action was taken against the defendant no.1 and his associates. The defendant no.1 alongwith his associates came at the suit property on 03.05.2011 and made attempt to forcefully dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property but due to timely intervention of the residents, he could not succeed. However, defendant no.1 has been regularly extending threats to dispossess the plaintiff. It is stated that later on during pendency of the trial of the suit, CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 32 the defendant no.1 sold the suit property to defendant no.2 on 02.03.2012 vide notarized documents. Subsequently, the defendant no. 2 also sold the suit property to defendant no. 3 on 06.03.2013 through notarized documents and after purchasing the suit property, the defendant no. 3 constructed the boundary walls and installed an iron gate upon the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
4. The plaintiff has prayed for (a) a decree of declaration in his favour and against the defendants thereby declaring him to be the owner of the suit property, (b) a decree of possession in his favour and against the defendants thereby directing the defendant no.3 to handover the peaceful possession of the suit property to him and (c) a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their legal heirs, servants, family members etc from selling, transferring, alienating or parting with the suit property.
5. The defendant no.1 did not contest the suit by filing written statement and made a statement in the Court on 31.05.2018 to the effect that he had purchased the suit property from one Vijay Pal in the year 2000 by virtue of unregistered GPA and agreement to sell etc., all dated CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 32 15.01.2000 and thereafter he sold it to defendant no.2, namely, Sh. Vikram by virtue of agreement to sell etc. all dated. 02.03.2012 and handed over the possession of the suit property to defendant no.2 and now, he has no right, title or interest in the suit property.
6. The defendant no.2 (Sh. Vikram) also did not contest the suit and made a statement on 17.11.2017 before the Ld. ACJ/CCJ/ARC, Dwarka Courts where initially the suit was filed to the effect that he had purchased the suit property from defendant no. 1 Sh. Vinod Kumar on 02.03.2012 vide notarized GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, receipt and possession letter, all dated 02.03.2012 and, thereafter, on 06.03.2013 sold the same to defendant no.3 vide similar set of documents dated 06.03.2013 and he does not have any right, title or interest in the same.
7. The defendant no.3 has contested the suit by filing the written statement contending that plaintiff is a land mafia and indulged in grabbing the vacant plots of the persons who are living far away by forging, fabricating and manufacturing the documents and he has adopted the same tactics in respect of property of defendant no. 1 but could not succeed. The matter went to the police and police took the CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 32 photocopies of the title deeds from the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and sought demarcation from the revenue department which was conducted on 16.05.2011 and submitted their report as per which the suit property is situated in Khasra no. 84/8 and not in Khasra no. 28/8 and 28/9 out of revenue estate of Village Mitraon Delhi. It clearly shows that the plaintiff has forged and fabricated the documents in order to grab the suit property. It is stated that the suit property was purchased by defendant no.1 from Sh. Vijay Pal against valuable consideration on 15.01.2000. As per the Khewat and mutation thereof, after the death of Sh. Mir Singh, name of his three sons, namely, Indraj, Bal Kishan and Nawal Singh was mutated in his place and they all sold 150 sq. yards of plot of land, bearing Khasra No. 84/8, situated in Village Mitraon, Delhi to Smt. Sunita on 12.12.1989 who further sold it to Sh. Vijay Pal on 16.03.1992 and Sh. Vijay Pal sold the same to defendant no.1 on 15.01.2000. It is contended that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. It is denied that plaintiff is lawful owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff has constructed boundary walls of the suit property after purchase thereof. It is further denied that plaintiff has CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 32 purchased the suit property from Sh. Indraj vide GPA, Agreement to sell dated 15.06.1986. It is stated that Sh. Indraj was having no independent right, title or interest in the suit property because as per revenue records, Sh. Indraj, Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh were the joint owners who sold the suit property to Smt. Sunita. It is contended that suit property is in actual, physical possession of defendant no.3 being owner thereof having purchased the same from defendant no.2 and plaintiff has got no right, title or interest in the suit property. The defendant no.3 has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
8. The plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of defendant no.3 in which the averments made in the plaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed and those made in the written statement have been controverted.
9. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 31.05.2018 :
1) Whether the suit property has been undervalued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees and appropriate court fee has not been affixed ? OPD1.
2) Whether the plaintiff has purchased the suit property CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 32 i.e. property bearing No. 154, measuring 150 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 84/8, situated in the area village Mitraon, Najafgarh Abadi, known as Gopal Nagar Extension, BBlock, Najafgarh, New Delhi by virtue of GPA, Agreement to sell, Receipt and Affidavit, all dated 15.06.1988 after paying a valuable sale consideration amount of Rs. 23,500/ to its erstwhile owner namely Indraj ? OPP.
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession of the suit property, as prayed for ? OPP.
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP.
5) Relief.
10. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined four witnesses including himself as PW1. He filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A in consonance of averments made in the plaint. During his deposition before the Court as PW1, the plaintiff relied upon and exhibited the following documents: Mark A : Photocopy of his voter Card Ex. PW1/1 : Copy of complaint dated 03.03.2011 given to SHO PS Baba Haridas Nagar Ex. PW1/2 : Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell, (Colly) Affidavit and Receipt dated 15.06.1988 Ex. PW1/3 : Affidavit of Sh. Inder Singh dated 15.04.2011 CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 32 Ex. PW1/4 : Affidavit of Sh. Bal Kishan dated 15.04.2011 Ex. PW1/5 : Affidavit of Sh. Nawal Singh dated 15.04.2011 Ex. PW1/6 : Site plan of the suit property
11. The plaintiff has also examined Sh. Nawal Singh as PW2, Sh. Bal Kishan as PW3 and Sh. Inder Raj Singh as PW4 from whom he has claimed to have purchased the suit property. The testimonies of the said witnesses shall be discussed at the later stage of the judgment.
12. On the other hand, the defendant no.3 in support of his defence has examined himself as sole witness as D3W1 and filed his affidavit in evidence in consonance of the averments made in the written statement which is Ex. D3W1/A. During his deposition, he has relied upon the following documents : Ex. D3W1/1 : Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell, (Colly) Affidavit, Receipt and Will, all dated 12.12.1989 executed by Inder Raj, Bal Kishan and Nawal Singh in favor of Smt. Sunita.
Ex. D3W1/2 : Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell,
(Colly) Affidavit, Receipt and Will, all dated
CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 32
16.03.1992 executed by Smt. Sunita in
favour of Sh. Vijay Pal.
Ex. D3W1/3 : Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell,
(Colly), Affidavit, Receipt, Possession letter
and Will, all dated 15.01.2000
executed by Vijay Pal in favour of Sh.
Vinod (defendant no. 1);
Ex. D3W1/4 : Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell,
(Colly) Affidavit, Receipt and Will, all dated
02.03.2012 executed by Sh. Vinod
Kumar in favour of Sh. Vikram
(defendant no. 2);
Ex. D3W1/5 : Copy of GPA, Agreement to sell,
(Colly) Affidavit, Receipt and Will, all dated
06.03.2013 executed by Vikram in
favour of defendant no. 3;
Ex. D3W1/6 : Three photographs of the suit property.
(Colly)
13. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
14. On the basis of material available on record, my issuewise findings are as under: Issue No. (1) (Whether the suit property has been undervalued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees and appropriate court fee has not been affixed ?) CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 32
15. The onus to prove this issue has been placed upon the defendant no. 1. However, it appears that onus has been wrongly placed upon the defendant no. 1 because the defendant no. 1 has not filed written statement in this case and has not contested the suit. Rather it is the defendant no. 3 who has taken this objection in the written statement filed by him that the present suit has not been valued properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. So, the onus to prove this issue should have been placed upon the defendant no. 3.
16. The defendant no. 3 has contended in his written statement that the present value of the suit property is ranging between Rs.2022 lacs and hence the plaint has neither been properly valued nor requisite court fee has been filed by the plaintiff.
17. Perusal of record shows that the plaintiff has valued the present suit at Rs.10,00,000/ for the relief of possession upon which he has affixed the court fee of Rs.12104/ and for the relief of declaration, the suit has been valuded at Rs. 200/ upon which court fee of Rs. 20/ has been affixed. Similarly, for the relief of injunction, the suit has been valued at Rs. 130/ upon which requisite court fee of Rs. 13/ has been CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 32 affixed by the plaintiff.
18. The defendant no. 3 has not led any contrary evidence to show that value of the suit property at the time of filing the suit was ranging between Rs.20 lacs to Rs. 22 lacs and not Rs. 10 lacs as claimed by the plaintiff. Even in his evidence by way of affidavit, the defendant no. 3 has not taken any such plea that the suit is under valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the market value of the suit property at the time of filing the suit was ranging between Rs.2022 lacs and the suit is undervalued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant no. 3.
Issue No. (2) (Whether the plaintiff has purchased the suit property i.e. property bearing No. 154, measuring 150 sq. yards, out of Khasra No.84/8, situated in the area village Mitraon, Najafgarh Abadi, known as Gopal Nagar Extension, BBlock, Najafgarh, New Delhi by virtue of GPA, Agreement to sell, Receipt and Affidavit, all dated 15.06.1986 after paying a valuable sale consideration amount of Rs. 23,500/ to its erstwhile owner namely Indraj ?)
19. The onus to prove this issue is on plaintiff. The plaintiff in CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 32 order to discharge the onus has examined himself as PW1 and and has also examined erstwhile owners of the suit property, namely, Sh. Nawal Singh as PW2, Sh. Bal Kisahn as PW3 and Sh. Inder Raj Singh as PW4.
20. PW2 (Sh. Nawal Singh), PW3 (Sh. Bal Kishan) and PW4 (Sh. Inder Raj Singh) who are real brothers and erstwhile owners of the suit property in their examinationinchief have deposed on the same lines that they had jointly purchased the agricultural land measuring about 5 to 5 ½ acres approximately in the year 198485 and sold the said land jointly in the year 1988 to some colonizers, but they do not have personal knowledge about ploting of the said land and about the persons to whom the said plots were sold by the colonizers.
21. The joint ownership of erstwhile owners Sh. Inder Raj Singh, Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh over the suit property has not been disputed by the defendant no. 3 in the written statement. So, it is evident that earlier the suit property bearing No. 154, measuring 150 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 84/8, Village Mitraon, Najafgarh, New Delhi was jointly owned by three brothers namely, Sh. Inder Raj Singh, CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 32 Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh. Now, As per the claim of the plaintiff, he has purchased the suit property from its erstwhile owner Sh. Inder Raj Singh on 15.06.1988 who was given authority by his two brothers/coowners Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh to sell the suit property on their behalf. The plaintiff has further claimed that after purchasing the suit property, he constructed boundary wall of the suit property and since then he had been in possession of the same but on 24.02.2011 when he went to suit property as a routine visit, he found some persons putting mud at the suit property and on inquiry they told that they were working at the suit property at the instance of the defendant no. 1 who is owner of the same. The plaintiff also filed a written complaint against defendant no. 1 at PS Baba Haridas Nagar, New Delhi on 03.11.2011, but no action was taken. It is further claim of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 during the pendency of the suit sold the suit property to defendant no. 2 on 02.03.2012 who further sold the suit property to defendant no. 3 on 06.03.2013 who after purchasing the suit property constructed a boundary wall and installed an iron gate upon the suit property.
CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 32
22. On the other hand, the defendant no. 3 in his written statement has denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. Rather he has claimed himself to be owner of the suit property having purchased the same from defendant no. 2 (Sh. Vikram) vide documents dated 06.03.2013. The defendant no.3 has claimed that Sh. Inder Raj Singh, Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh who were joint owners of the suit property sold it to Smt. Sunita on 12.12.1989 who further sold it to Sh. Vijay Pal on 16.03.1992. Sh. Vijay Pal later on sold the suit property to defendant no. 1 on 15.01.2000 who also sold it to defendant no. 2 on 02.03.2012 from whom he had purchased the suit property on 06.03.2013 against valuable consideration.
23. In view of aforesaid rival claims of the parties, the onus was upon the plaintiff to prove that he is owner of the suit property having purchased the same from its erstwhile owner Sh. Inder Raj Singh. The plaintiff in support of his claim has relied upon the title documents which are General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and Receipt, all dated 15.06.1988 executed by Sh. Inder Raj in his favour and exhibited the same as Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 32
24. Perusal of the said documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) shows that the same are in respect of a property falling in Khasra No. 28/8 and 28/9 situated in revenue estate of Village Mitraon, Delhi, while the plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the suit property which falls in Khasra No. 84/8 in revenue estate of Village Mitraon, Delhi.
25. It is also pertinent to mention here that the pursuant to the complaint made by the plaintiff on 03.03.2011 Ex.PW1/1, the police investigated the matter and found that khasra number mentioned in the title documents of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) does not exist in revenue estate of Village Mitraon, Delhi. PW1 (the plaintiff) has admitted in his crossexamination that Patwari during investigation in his report has stated that the Khasra number mentioned in his documents does not exist in Mitraon Village. As such, the documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming his ownership over the suit property appear to be in respect of a different property which does not exist in Village Mitraon, New Delhi where the suit property is situated.
26. PW1 (the plaintiff) has admitted in his crossexamination CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 32 that the Khasra number mentioned in his documents is wrong. Although the plaintiff has tried to prove on record that the khasra number has been wrongly mentioned in his title documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) as 28/8 and 28/9 and the correct Khasra No. is 84/8 and to this effect he has placed on record the affidavits of erstwhile owners Sh. Inder Raj Singh, Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh as Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 respectively.
27. PW2 (Sh. Nawal Singh), one of the erstwhile owners of the suit property during his deposition was shown the affidavit Ex.PW1/5 whereupon he has admitted his signatures at points A & B. In the cross examination, PW2 (Sh. Nawal Singh) stated that the plaintiff approached him stating that the khasra number mentioned in his documents was wrongly mentioned and the plaintiff had to correct it in the records for which he issued Ex. PW1/5. He further stated that he was not having any knowledge regarding the khasra number mentioned in the title documents in favour of plaintiff. He admitted that he had issued Ex. PW1/5 in good faith when the plaintiff approached him and requested for issuance of the aforesaid document while he does not have CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 32 any personal knowledge whether the plaintiff has purchased any plot in their land.
28. In view of aforesaid crossexamination of PW2 (Sh.Nawal Singh), when this witness has issued the said affidavit Ex.PW1/5 in good faith only at the request of the plaintiff and he is not having any knowledge regarding the khasra number mentioned in the title documents and he even did not know whether the plaintiff has purchased any plot in their land or not, his testimony that the affidavit Ex.PW1/5 has been issued by him to the effect that in the title documents of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) khasra number has been wrongly mentioned as 28/8 and 28/9 and correct khasra number is 84/8 is of no consequence.
29. Similarly, PW3 (Sh. Bal Kishan) another erstwhile owner of the suit property during his examinationinchief has admitted his signatures on affidavit Ex.PW1/4 at points A & B. In the cross examination, this witness stated that said affidavit Ex. PW1/4 was given by him to the plaintiff for getting the khasra number corrected from the Patwari. He further stated that he had not issued any affidavit of such nature as Ex. PW1/4 in favour of any person who purchased the plot in CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 32 their land. He further stated that he was not having any personal knowledge that plaintiff has purchased plot in their land.
30. Again testimony of this witness PW3 (Sh. Bal Kishan) is of no help to the plaintiff regarding his claim of wrong mentioning of khasra number in his title documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). When this witness has no personal knowledge about purchase of suit land by the plaintiff, he cannot claim that the khasra number mentioned in the title documents of the plaintiff is incorrect as declared by him in affidavit Ex. PW1/4, more so when he had not issued any affidavit of such nature as Ex.PW1/4 in favour of any person who had purchased plot in their land as admitted by him.
31. PW4 Sh. Inder Raj Singh who also admitted his signatures on the affidavit Ex.PW1/3 during his examinationinchief stated in his crossexamination that he has not issued any affidavit of such nature as Ex. PW1/3 to correct the khasra number in favour of any person who purchased the plot in their land. He stated that he has not verified personally about the khasra number mentioned in Ex. PW1/2. He categorically stated that he was not having any personal knowledge CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 32 whether the plaintiff has purchased the plot in their land.
32. As such, this witness (PW4 Sh. Inder Raj Singh) from whom the plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the suit property is also not having any personal knowledge about the purchase of the plot in his land by the plaintiff. He has also not verified personally about the khasra number mentioned in Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). Therefore, affidvit issued by this witness Ex.PW1/3 to the effect that khasra number mentioned as 28/8 and 28/9 in the documents of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/2(Colly) is wrong and correct khasra number is 84/8 is no help to the plaintiff.
33. Thus, the plaintiff by examining the aforesaid erstwhile owners has not been able to prove that title documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) bear incorrect khasra number as 28/8 and 28/9 and, in fact, the said documents are in respect of suit property falling in Khasra No. 84/8. The affidavits obtained by the plaintiff in this regard Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5 of erstwhile owners are of no help to plaintiff as they even do not know about the purchase of any plot by the plaintiff in their land.
34. It is also to be noted that the affidavits Ex.PW1/3 to CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 32 Ex.PW1/5 have been issued by the erstwhile owners Sh. Inder Raj, Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh to the effect that incorrect khasra number has been mentioned in the title documents of the plaintiff have been issued on 15.04.2011 and the plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the suit property in the year 1988. If there was any such typographical mistake in mentioning the khasra number in the title documents of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/2 (Colly), then it is not understandable as to why the plaintiff kept silent for a long period and did not take any steps from 1988 to 2011 to rectify the khasra number in the title documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). No explanation has come forward on the part of the plaintiff in this regard and it creates doubt on the story of the plaintiff regarding mentioning of wrong khasra number in the documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly).
35. Furthermore, the title documents relied upon by the plaintiff qua the suit property Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) are not only in respect of a different property falling in Khasra No. 28/8 and 28/9 which does not exist in Village Mitraon, New Delhi where the suit property failing in Khasra No. 84/8 is situated but there are other discrepancies as well in CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 32 the said documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) which has been admitted by the plaintiff in his crossexamination.
36. PW1 (the plaintiff) during his crossexamination admitted that Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) do not bear his signature as a second party. He further admitted that the typing print in his chain Ex.PW1/2 are of different style and that the witnesses in his GPA, Agreement to sell and Receipt are different. He also admitted that the receipt of payment which is part of Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) also does not bear his signature. He stated that Ex. PW1/2 (Colly) were notarized simultaneously but he admitted that Ex. PW1/2(Colly) do not bear notary stamp.
37. The aforesaid admissions of the plaintiff demonstrate that even the documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) on the basis of which he is claiming ownership over the suit property do not bear his signatures. Further, not only the typing print of the said documents are different but the attesting witnesses to the said documents are also different despite execution of the said documents on the same day i.e. 15.06.1988 and even some of the documents do not bear the Notary stamp. These discrepancies in the said documents raise doubt on the authenticity and CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 32 genuineness of the documents.
38. It is also noteworthy that the plaintiff has claimed in his crossexamination that the possession of the suit property was handed over to him after execution of papers Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) on the next date i.e. 16.06.1988 but there is no possession letter issued by erstwhile owners to the said effect which fact the plaintiff has admitted in his crossexamination when he stated that Inder Raj has not handed over any possession letter to him.
39. There is another aspect of the matter. The plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the suit property from its erstwhile owner Sh. Inder Raj Singh vide title documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) dated 15.06.1988. However, it is undisputed fact and has also come on record that Sh. Inder Raj Singh alone was not the owner of the suit property and he alongwith his two brothers, namely, Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh jointly owned the suit property. The plaintiff has claimed that Sh. Inder Raj Singh was given authority by his two brothers Sh. Bal Kishan and Sh. Nawal Singh to sell the suit property on their behalf and has tried to prove the same through the testimonies of the said erstwhile CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 32 owners.
40. In his evidence, PW2 (Sh. Nawal Singh) has deposed that he has given the authority to sign or to sell the property on his behalf to his brother, namely, Sh. Inder Raj. However, in his crossexamination he stated that he cannot produce any document which can show that he has given any authority to his brother, namely, Inder Raj Singh to sell the aforesaid land.
41. Likewise, PW3 (Sh. Bal Kishan) deposed in his examinationinchief that he has given the authority to sign or to sell the property on his behalf to his brother, namely, Sh. Inder Raj. In the cross examination, he stated that he has given the authority to his brother, namely, Sh. Inder Raj to sell the agriculture land in 1988 but he does not have any document to show the aforesaid authorization on his behalf in favour of Inder Raj Singh.
42. PW4 Sh. Inder Raj Singh though also deposed in his evidence that he had the authority to sign or to sell the property on his behalf and on behalf of his other two brothers, but in the cross examination he stated that he does not have the copy of power of CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 32 attorney vide which he has been authorized by his brothers to sell their agricultural land. The plaintiff has also stated in his crossexamination that he has not filed the GPA of Sh. Naval Singh and Bal Kishan through which they have transferred their rights in the suit property in favour of Sh. Inder Raj.
43. In the absence of any such GPA or authority executed by Sh. Nawal Singh and Sh. Bal Kishan in favour of Sh. Inder Raj Singh, the said Sh. Inder Raj was not competent to sell the suit property to the plaintiff which was jointly owned by Sh. Inder Raj alongwith his said two brothers.
44. Not only this, the plaintiff has also not been able to produce any chain of documents to prove his ownership over the suit property. He categorically stated in his crossexamination that he has purchased the suit property from Sh. Inder Raj, however, he has not handed over him the previous chain/ownership documents of the suit property. It is not understandable that if the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from Sh. Inder Raj, then why he will not provide the previous chain of documents of the suit property to the plaintiff. The erstwhile owners CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 32 from whom the plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the suit property even do not know that any such land was sold to the plaintiff by them or not.
45. There is yet another aspect of the matter. In the present suit, the plaintiff has claimed in para no. 10 of the plaintiff that during pendency of trial, the defendant no. 1 sold the suit property to the defendant no. 2 on 02.03.2012 vide notarized documents and thereafter defendant no. 2 further sold the suit property to defendant no. 3 on 06.03.2013 and thereafter the defendant no. 3 constructed boundary wall and installed an iron gate upon the suit property. It is to be noted that the plaintiff has not disclosed on which date the possession of the suit property was obtained by the defendant no. 1 from him forcibly. The entire plaint is conspicuously silent as to when the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit property. Even if the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit property during pendency of the suit as claimed by him, he should have intimated the said fact to the Court but the plaintiff at no stage during the pendeny of the suit has moved any application stating that he has been dispossessed by defendant no. 3 CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 27 of 32 illegally and his possession may be restored. Except taking a bald plea, the plaintiff has not been able to prove his possession in the suit property or his dispossession by defendant no. 3 from the suit property.
46. Although in the crossexamination, PW1 (the plaintiff) stated that Rohtash who is defendant no. 3 has obtained the possession of the suit property from him on 06.03.2013. However, from this statement of the plaintiff it is not deducible that whether the defendant no. 3 has dispossessed the plaintiff or possession of the suit property was given by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 3 as per his own will. The plaintiff further stated that he has made the complaints to police about the dispossession by defendant no.1 Vinod on 24.02.2011 and the copies of the same were received by him on 03.03.2011. He further stated that he has not made any complaint against the defendant no.1 regarding his dispossession in the year 2013.
47. From these statements, it is not clear whether the plaintiff was dispossessed in the year 2011 by defendant no. 1 or in the year 2013 by defendant no. 3 and even if he was dispossessed in the year 2013 then he did not make any complaint against the said dispossession. All these CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 28 of 32 inconsistent statements of the plaintiff cast doubt on his story of forcible dispossession at the hands of the defendants.
48. On the other hand, the defendant no. 3 has examined himself as D3W1 and deposed in his affidavit in evidence as per the averments made in the written statement filed by him and has filed the complete chain of documents to show his ownership over the suit property starting from Smt. Sunita.
49. The defendant has placed on record the copy of GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt and Will, all dated 12.12.1989 executed by Inder Raj, Bal Kishan and Nawal Singh as Ex.D3W1/1 (Colly) by which they sold the suit property falling in Khasra No. 84/8 to Smt. Sunita. Smt. Sunita further sold the suit property vide similar set of documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt and Will, all dated 16.03.1992 Ex.D3W1/2 (Colly) to Sh. Vijay Pal who further sold the suit property to Sh. Vinod (defendant no. 1) vide title documents Ex.D3W1/3 (Colly) which includes GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession letter and Will, all dated 15.01.2000. Sh. Vinod (defendant no. 1) subsequently also sold the suit property to Sh. Vikram CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 29 of 32 (defendant no. 2) vide GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt and Will, all dated 02.03.2012 Ex.D3W1/4 (Colly) who further sold the suit property to Sh. Rohtash (defendant no. 3) vide GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Receipt and Will, all dated 06.03.2013 Ex.D3W1/5 (Colly).
50. In the crossexamination of D3W1 (the defendant no. 3) was suggested that the documents Ex. D3W1/2 to Ex. D3W1/5 are forged and fabricated which he denied. He further denied the suggestion that all the aforesaid documents are prepared by him or his associates. He stated that at the time of taking of possession of the suit property, the suit property was already constructed with the boundary wall upto 5 ft and an iron gate was also installed in the same. He further categorically stated that when he was raising construction at the suit property plaintiff called the police and thereafter he came to know that present litigation is going on between the parties qua the suit property.
51. The aforesaid crossexamination of defendant no. 3 shows that except putting suggestion regarding the forgery of documents placed by him which was denied by him, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff could not extract anything material to impeach his testimony regarding his CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 30 of 32 ownership over the suit property and the chain of ownership documents filed by him.
52. From the aforesaid discussions and the evidence adduced by the parties, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his ownership over the suit property having purchased the same from Sh. Inder Raj vide documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). The plaintiff even has not been able to prove that he was ever in possession of the suit property and was dispossessed by the defendants from the suit property. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. (3) (Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession of the suit property, as prayed for ?)
53. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. In view of my findings under Issue No. (2), since the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is owner of the suit property by virtue of documents Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) and even he could not prove that he was ever in possession of the suit property, the plaintiff cannot be said to be entitled to decree of possession of the suit property. Hence, this issue is decided against the CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 31 of 32 plaintiff.
Issue no. 4 (Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for ?)
54. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. However, since the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the suit property and also failed to prove that he was ever in possession of the same, the plaintiff cannot be said to be entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
55. As a sequel to my findings under Issue No. (2) to (4), the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after Digitally signed BALWANT by BALWANT necessary compliance. RAI RAI BANSAL Date: 2020.01.21 BANSAL 12:20:11 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 15th January, 2020 Additional District Judge05 (SouthWest) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi CS No. 162/18 Ajeet Singh vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Page 32 of 32