Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had purchased a built­up property one side open flat bearing private flat no. B, in property no. U ­ 189, First Floor, Upadhyay Block, Shakarpur, Delhi ­ 92 admeasuring 70 sq. yds. on 28/09/2005 from the defendant. The said property hereinafter referred to as "suit property", is shown in red colour in the site plan. The defendant executed all the necessary title documents as required for transferring the title of the suit property in favour of plaintiff i.e., registered irrevocable General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit, Will, payment receipts all bearing the date 20/09/2005. The irrevocable General Power of Attorney was registered on 29/09/2005 and the rest of the documents were notarised. The defendant handed over the chain of all previous title documents of the suit property as well as the vacant peaceful possession to the plaintiff. The electricity and water connection are stated to be in the name of the plaintiff.

51.It is highly probable that the entire fact regarding the alleged taking of loans by the plaintiff from the bank and giving collateral security could have been a ruse in order to deceive the defendant as well as DW­2 to get the documents of the suit property executed in favour of the plaintiff.

52.In the light of what has been discussed in above, even if DW­2 admitted her signatures and thumb impressions on documents exhibited as Ex. PW­3/1 (General Power of Attorney dated 28/09/2005) and Ex. PW­1/6 (notarised receipt dated 29/09/2005) does not mean that by the said ASUTOSH SAINI v. SUDHA SARIN documents ownership of the suit property was transferred from defendant to the plaintiff. The admission of DW­2 on the balance of probability also indicates the fact that the plaintiff took the signatures and thumb impressions of DW­2 on the said documents by deception/fraud.

78.The testimony of plaintiff is shaken by the following cross­examination on this aspect which is, "The Ex. PW­1/7 was notarised near the office of Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. All the executants and witnesses put their signatures on the register. Again said. The signatures were put on the document only. Again said. The thumb impressions were put in Asaf Ali Road before notary but the signature was put on the document at the suit property. I do not remember whether the signatures and thumb impressions were obtained in the register of notary public at the time of notarisation of document Ex PW­ 1/7. I do not remember whether the notary made any entry in the register in this regard". The plaintiff is trying to be consistent, but the effort of the plaintiff failed.

79.Since the moment of the filing of the written statement, the plaintiff knew as to what was the defence of the defendant with respect to documents exhibited as Ex. PW­1/3 to PW­1/7 which are notarised documents. From the stamp of the notary on the said documents it is not clear as to who the notary was, what was his registration number, the details regarding the notarisation for example the attestation number of the register, who had identified the executants of the said documents, etc. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to call the notary public who had notarised and the documents exhibited PW­1/3 to PW­1/7. The argument could have been ASUTOSH SAINI v. SUDHA SARIN that even the defendant could have called the public notary but then for the defendant to call the notary public as a witness their own to have been property deals with the notary public. The plaintiff shall be a liberty to try and examine the concerned public notary at later stage if there be any need for the same.