Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.1. That suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable as the documents i.e. General Power of Attorney, Will, Possession letter, Receipt, Agreement to sell and Rent Agreement filed/relied by the Plaintiff did not registered as per Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and in the absence of the registration of the documents, there is a bar to look into the said documents and hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. That the Plaintiff has deliberately filed the false affidavits in support of the their false and fictitious suit and application, hence they are liable to be prosecuted as per law. That the Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the Defendant with the malafide intentions to extort money from the Defendant and for black mailing them, therefore, the Defendant has reserved his right to file a case of malicious prosecution under the provision of the law against the Plaintiff. That the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable as the Plaintiff has twisted concealed and distorted the true facts for the purpose of achieving the desire illegal object whereas the true facts are that in the month of August, 2014, the Defendant had approached the Plaintiff to borrow an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on a reasonable rate of interest i.e. 24% p.a. for the period of 20 months and after some negotiations, the same was agreed by the Plaintiff and therefore, under the garb of loan transaction and documentation, the Plaintiff had taken number of signatures and thumb impression of VIVEK the Defendant on the various written, blank and stamp papers, KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), by VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 7/31 17.03.2026 AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:00 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR with the assurance that the same is the part of the aforesaid loan transaction and would be destroyed, when the aforesaid loan of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be return to the Plaintiff. 3.2. It is pertinent to mention here that the Defendant has no option other than to bow down before the Plaintiff and accordingly, he put his signatures and thumb impressions on various documents. It is pertinent to mention here that after the expiry of aforesaid decided period of loan transaction i.e. 20 months, the Plaintiff in the first week of March, 2017, came to the Defendant and asked for the repayment of the aforesaid loan amount, but as the Defendant had not the arrangement of the said repayment of loan, therefore, he preferred to give three post dated cheques to the Plaintiff in discharge of the aforesaid loan transaction and out of which two cheques were of Rs.50,000/- bearing Cheque No.59011 and 59012 in his account and one cheque from his daughter's account, remained blank, purposely to adjust the remaining balance principle amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest amount, if any, and therefore, the Plaintiff was ready for the aforesaid arrangement of the Defendant and received the aforesaid cheques, but at the same time took signatures of the Defendant on the few blank papers and stamps papers. It is pertinent to mention here that the Plaintiff did not respect the genuine approach of the Defendant and misused the aforesaid sincerity by misusing all the three cheques in a different way against the Defendant and his daughter, as two cheques were VIVEK hornoured on the name of third person and the cheque belonging KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 8/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:07 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR to the daughter of the Defendant had been misused by filling the wrongful amount, which was resulted into dishonour. 3.3. That the present suit is not maintainable as the same is a fake attempt to grab the property of the Defendant on the basis of false, fictitious, forged, and fabricated documents as there had never been the relation of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the defendant, therefore, till date there is only a single relation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and that is in respect of the aforesaid loan transaction, otherwise, the Plaintiff comes under the category of known only. Hence the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost and more so ever, the Plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of false and fictitious documents and liable to be prosecuted under section 340 Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court.

8.3.2. Heard. Before going into the case of the plaintiff, I find it pertinent to discuss the case of the defendant. As mentioned above, the version of the defendant as per the WS is that he never sold the suit property to the plaintiff. That he had availed the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for period of 20 months @ 24% per annum in August, 2014 and at that time plaintiff had taken number of signatures and thumb impressions on the various "written, blank and stamp papers". It is the further case of the defendant that after expiry of the 20 months, the plaintiff in first week of March, 2017 came to the defendant and then defendant had given three post dated cheque to the plaintiff in discharge of the said loan transaction, out of which two cheques were of Rs. 50,000/- each and one cheque from the account of his daughter, was given blank to adjust the remaining balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest amount, if any and that at the same time plaintiff further took signatures of tthe defendant on few blank papers and stamp papers. On thorough appreciation of evidence, I come to conclusion that the entire version of the defendant, as mentioned above, apparently VIVEK seems to be a concoted story. I come to this conclusion for the KUMAR various reasons discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 15/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:18:56 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR 8.3.3. It is observed that defendant has stated that he had availed the loan amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in August, 2014 for period of 20 months, which expired in April, 2016, however, surprisingly the defendant has stated that " after expiry of aforeseaid decided period of loan transaction i.e. 20 months, the plaintiff in the first week of March, 2017, came to the defendant". Now, at the very first, the defendant has also failed to explain that what was the circumstances in which he was compelled to borrow the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Again, nothing is explained that when the period of 20 mopnths had expired in April, 2016, why plaintiff would have approached the defendant in March, 2017. The defendant has also failed to explain that when he had given the two filled cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each to the plaintiff, why the blank cheque from the account of his daughter would have been given to the plaintiff to adjust the amount of interest. As reflected from the evidence of plaintiff as well as from the document Ex.DW4/1, which is the record of criminal appeal filed by the daughter of the defendant against the plaintiff with respect to her conviction in the complaint u/S 138 of NI Act, the said cheque issued by the daughter of the defendant in favour of plaintiff was only for amount of Rs. 1,08,000/-. Accordingly, the said story of the defendant that he had got issued a blank cheque from his daughter to the plaintiff for adjustment of the interest amount along with the principal sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is apparently falsified, because otherwise, the plaintiff would have filled the VIVEK cheque for amount of Rs. 1,96,000/- including the interest KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),by VIVEK KUMAR PAGE 16/31 17.03.2026AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 17:19:06 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR amount of Rs. 96,000/-, calculated @ 24 % per annum for period of two years on the principal sum of Rs. 2,00,000. Again as reflected from the cross-examination of DW1 dt. 21.08.2025, the defendant himself stated that he did not remember as to when he had given the two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each to the plaintiff. That he also did not remember whether said cheques were given before or after his daughter gave cheques to the plaintiff. He further stated that he also did not remember as to when he had taken the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. 8.3.4. Accordingly, the entire story of the defendant of taking loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff is apparently not belivable and seems to be an after thought story. On the contrary, the version of plaintiff that said cheques were given for payment of rent amount, by the defendant, has been a consistent version without any contradictions. The said version of the plaintiff is there in the plaint as well as in the evidence affidavit of plaintiff / PW1 and it is further coroborated from the verision of the plaintiff in the complaint filed u/S 138 of NI Act against the daughter of the defendant, as reflected from the record Ex.DW4/1.

8.3.5. It is further observed that the plea of the defendant is that at the time of availing of the said loan, the plaintiff had obtained his signatures on some blank, written and stamp papers, however, said verision has again remained not proved and rather same also appears to be a false story. It is observed that in the VIVEK WS as well as in the evidence affidavit, defendant has stated that KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 17/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:19:12 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR he had signed said documents at the time availilng of loan of Rs. 2 lacs from the plaintiff and at the time of repayment of the said loan by way of cheques, however as discussed above, the version of defendant of taking loan from the plaintiff, itself has been held to be a concocted story. Again, as reflected from the cross- examination of DW1 dated 21.08.2025, he has stated that these were 5-6 documents and that the same were blank. Accordingly, on the one hand, the defendant has duly admitted that he had signed at least 5-6 documents and on the other hand, he has stated them to be blank as well as written and also being the stamp papers. A document can never be 'blank' and rather a blank paper becomes a document only when it has been written/ typed over. Again, on the one hand, defendant stated that he had signed 5-6 blank/written documents and on the contrary, he denied his signatures on the document EX. DW1/PX, which is the original document of the rent agreement. He further denied his signatures on the documents Ex. DW1/PX1 (Colly.), which are the photocopy of his own aadhar card and the photocopy of his voter id. He further denied his signatures on the original property documents of which the photocopy was already on record as Ex. PW1/2. Accordingly, as per the version of defendant himself, it is not clear that which were those 5-6 blank/written documents or stamp papers, which were signed by the defendant allgedly at the time of taking of loan from the plaintiff. At the same time, the defendant has also not stated even VIVEK a single word that what were the circumstances in which the KUMAR defendant was compelled to alledgely sign on blank papers or AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 18/31 17.03.2026 Date: 2026.03.17 17:19:20 +0530 CS SCJ 1030/17 SH GAJENDER YADAV Vs. SH PRAMOD KUMAR some written documents, without reading the contents of the same. There is presumption in law that every document is signed by a person only after reading the contents of the same and the said presumption can be rebutted only by way of substantial evidence. In the facts of present case, the defendant has not even stated about the circumstances in which he was compelled to take loan from the plaintiff by signing some documents without reading the contents of the same.

Note: This judgement contains 31 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.03.17 AGARWAL 17:21:00 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/17.03.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 31/31 17.03.2026