Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for cancellation of sale deed and sale­purchase agreement, to declare the ownership to recover the possession in favour of plaintiff.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINT :

2. It is averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that Tarsen Lal, S/o Sh. Ganga Ram, (defendant No.2) R/o B­464, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi was the real and actual exclusive owner and in possession of DDA built up Flat No.BG­5A/26C, LIG category situated in the layout plan of Paschim Vihar, Residential Scheme, Delhi with the loan hold rights of the land under the said property. That on 28.01.1987, defendant No.2 appointed and nominated plaintiff as his true and lawful general attorney to act on his behalf and for payment of loan to pay the lease money and other dues regarding the suit property, on demand. To file affidavit or reply to any letter or notice, to sign and get the lease deeds of the said flat and get the same registered in the office of the S.R. Delhi to sign and get the supplementary deed of the said flat from the office of the DDA to appear in the office of the appropriate authority in respect of all the matters regarding the said flat and to do all other acts, to pay the house tax of SUIT NO : 95252/16 (OLD NO.567/16) Pg 2 of 24 Braj Nandan Singh v. Sushma the said property, to apply or and get the electric, water etc. to execute, sign and present all kinds of suits, complaints etc, to let out the said property on rent to any person, to file suit for the ejectment of the tenant from the said property, to sell the said property with the lease hold rights of the land under the said property, to receive the consideration amount or earnest money and to hand over the possession to the purchaser, to apply and get the sale permission, to appoint any arbitrator in respect of any dispute, to engage any advocate to appoint and remove further attorney etc. The said General Power of Attorney was never cancelled by defendant No.2. At the time of constituting the above general power of attorney the relationship between plaintiff and his wife Smt. Sushma (defendant No.1) was cordial and therefore, the money was paid and receipt was made in the name of defendant No.1. The plaintiff could not understand his wife's nature and who was residing with him like a good wife, however, but in those days all the documents and papers related to the suit property and other important documents were either lost or taken away for which the plaintiff had lodged complaint in writing to PS Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The ration card and other important documents which were in the possession of defendant No.1 were lost or SUIT NO : 95252/16 (OLD NO.567/16) Pg 3 of 24 Braj Nandan Singh v. Sushma taken away by her for which a complaint was also lodged. After some time the plaintiff's identity card and other important documents also got lost from his house. On 13.10.1989 a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff to PS Paschim Vihar, about theft of following papers i.e. (a) Receipt of payment of Rs.1500/­/ challan No.121527 from DDA, (b) Registration Certificate vide No.19168 dated 21.05.1980 in the name of Tarsem Lal, House No.H­468, New Rajendra Nagar, Delhi, (c) letter for possession, (d) payment receipt against demand letter for possession,

17. In the present case as well the GPA which is Ex.PW­1/1 dated 28.01.1987 is merely an unregistered document and is pitted against a registered sale deed which in itself is a valid proof of conveyance of suit property and would any case carry more weight and value as compared SUIT NO : 95252/16 (OLD NO.567/16) Pg 19 of 24 Braj Nandan Singh v. Sushma to an unregistered GPA. Moreover plaintiff although claims to have paid the consideration himself to defendant No.2 while Ex.PW­1/1, GPA was executed, however admittedly the receipt of such payment is in name of defendant no.1, hence this document also does not corroborate the version of the plaintiff, rather if anything goes against him. Plaintiff has further stated that all the other documents pertaining to the suit property got lost and that he had lodged a missing complaint with Police Station Paschim Vihar. Plaintiff has stated that documents pertaining to purchase of suit property from defendant no.2 also got lost and that he had registered a complaint with PS Paschim Vihar on 13.10.1989. Such complaint is Mark­C. Although, this document is only a photocopy, and the neither the original has been produced nor any witness has been summoned by the plaintiff to prove the authenticity of this document. Hence, such document cannot be relied on for any purpose. Furthermore, to support his case, plaintiff has brought on record Ex.PW­ 1/2, which is a complaint dated 30.06.2005 addressed to SHO, Paschim Vihar made by the plaintiff himself. On perusal of such document, it is found that such complaint was received in the police station on 30.06.2005, as is evident from the stamp of the police station. However SUIT NO : 95252/16 (OLD NO.567/16) Pg 20 of 24 Braj Nandan Singh v. Sushma such complaint is not clear as to the description of the documents claimed to have been lost. The complaint simply states that "all papers/documents of the above mentioned flat missplaced" (sic). Neither does the complaint state from where did the document got lost and/or how many documents got lost. Neither does the complaint state the nature of documents claimed to have been lost. The complaint appears to be lacking in details and lackluster. Hence apart from the Ex­PW­1/1, i.e. GPA dated 28.01.1987, plaintiff has not brought on record any other evidence to prove his ownership on the suit property. Consequently, it cannot be said that GPA of the plaintiff gives a better title to the plaintiff as against a registered sale deed. Hence, issue No 3 is decided against the plaintiff.

The question of title/ownership has already been dealt with in Issue No.3.

19. Now coming to the claim of previous possession, plaintiff claims that he had been dispossessed of the suit property. To prove his possession over the suit property plaintiff has neither brought any direct evidences nor any oral testimony of any witness, apart from his own testimony. Plaintiff has filed a document which is claimed to be a complaint addressed to DCP­Paschim Vihar, against illegal possession over the suit property by defendant No.1 and some other unknown persons which is identified as Mark­I. However such document is only a photocopy, and no witness was summoned to prove the authenticity of such document, hence no reliance can be placed on this document. Additionally, in his pleadings Plaintiff has only stated that he had lost his voter's identity card and on 16.02.1998, and lodged a complaint with PS Paschim Vihar, such complaint is Ex.PW­1/3. Plaintiff was cross examined on this point, on cross examination dated 24.10.2011 wherein plaintiff himself has deposed that "after my election card was misplaced, I never applied for fresh card as I did not see the need. I never visited the police station again regarding my complaint about missing voter ID". What SUIT NO : 95252/16 (OLD NO.567/16) Pg 22 of 24 Braj Nandan Singh v. Sushma conspires from the perusal of such cross­examination and the Ex.PW­ 1/3, is that neither the complaint state the address of which the lost voter's ID pertained nor did the plaintiff made any efforts to pursue such complaint or to het his voter's ID re­issued, since the year 1998. I find it hard to believe that any person who had lost so many valuable documents pertaining to his identify as well as his immovable property did not make any efforts to either trace those documents or to reconstruct those lost documents, this goes beyond any conceivable common sense. Hence, the version of the plaintiff is not found to be plausible. Therefore, at this stage, what can be inferred that plaintiff has not been even able to establish his possession over the suit property at any point of time before filing of the present suit. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC? OPD.