Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

PW 1 was duly cross examined. The relevant portion of her cross examination will be discussed little later. PW 2 is Raj Kumar Gupta, who has testified that he is into property dealing business and suit property i.e. Plot no.141, Block 21,Sec. 24, Rohini, Delhi was owned by Ms. Manorama and in the year 1997 in his presence as well as in the presence of one Hari Om Jindal said Ms. Manorama had sold the property to Smt. Madhu Garg and sale consideration was finalized to be Rs. 1,95,000/­. Witness proved the draft of documents like GPA, SPA,Will and Agreement to Sell. PW 2 further testified that GPA, SPA, Will was registered through Sub­Registrar, Pitrampura. Those draft of sale documents are Will is Ex.PW1/1, SPA is Ex.PW2/1, GPA is Ex.PW1/3 and Agreement to Sell is Ex.PW1/2. Witness has identified the points where he put his signatures in original documents of sale. PW 3 Sh. Hari Om Jindal has testified the same facts as deposed by PW 2 and he has also testified that draft documents of sale regarding suit property executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 are proper and same are similar as executed in his presence. This witness has also testified that he has given statement before police during investigation of the matter.

Having appreciated the evidence led on behalf of plaintiff first of all it is necessary to mention here that defendant no.1 from whom plaintiff is claiming to have purchased the suit property has not contested the suit and was proceeded exparte. As such she had never filed the WS to either admit or deny the said sale in favour of the plaintiff. Another important aspect of the matter is Suit no. 154/13 Smt. Madhu Vs. Smt. Manorama that plaintiff is relying upon documents like draft of GPA, SPA, Agreement to Sell and Will to establish sale in her favour. Evidently even if documents like Will, GPA are registered but these documents can not be considered to be a good document of title in respect of sale of immovable property. It is required that there must be a sale deed duly executed and registered in terms of provision of Section 17 of Indian Registration Act. Moreover, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in "Suraj Lamp Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2012) SCC 656" it has been observed that "We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of GPA sales' or 'SA/GPA/WILL, transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an 17 end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales."

Thus from the above discussion of the judgment there can not be any dispute regarding legal preposition that one party to the suit can be called upon in the witness box at the instance of the other party of the same suit. In the facts of the present case it was even more important for plaintiff to establish the alleged sale in her favour, documentary evidence regarding sale no doubt could have been proved also by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. In the present case when according to plaintiff original documents of sale were misplaced from her another flat and record regarding registration of documents before Sub­Registrar was also not traceable, in such situation when documents of sale have not been proved by some concrete evidence and only sought to be proved by draft of those documents I find that those drafts can not be proved to be the same which were original documents of sale unless the executor of the same comes in the witness box. Draft of the sale documents Ex.PW1/1, PW2/1, PW1/3, PW1/2 are those drafts which could have been proved only by Ms. Manorma (defendant no.1) if she would have been called in the witness box. Reference in this regard can also be given of other judgments "M.C.Anand Vs. M.C.Chikkanna,2002(3) RCR (Civil) 162" wherein Hon'ble Karnatka High Court while referring to the provision of Order 16 rule 21 has held that plaintiff could summon the defendant as a witness and can also required him to produce the documents. Reference can also be given of judgment of "Dinanath and Ors. Vs. Shanti Devi (2006) 142, DLR 456" in which Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that if there are very good reasons for summoning the opposite party as witness then said party can be summoned as witness to prove out the truth. Thus from the meaningful reading of the ratio laid down in the above Suit no. 154/13 Smt. Madhu Vs. Smt. Manorama discussed judgments and in the facts and circumstances of the case when plaintiff has not made even any effort to call upon defendant no.1 in the witness box to prove the alleged documents of sale I find that said non examination of defendant no.1 casts serious doubt regarding establishing of sale transaction between plaintiff and defendant no.1.