Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

VIVEK The function was attended by many relatives and friends. KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Date: 2026.04.27 PAGE 7/44 27.04.2026 17:21:47 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH 5.1. It is further stated that the defendant has applied for electricity connection in D.E.S.U office Nazafgarh, New Delhi in the month of January/February, 1993 and had furnished photocopies of the relevant documents including indemnity bond, affidavit, G.P.A. etc. for getting connection in the house B-130. That the defendant applied for ration card for whole of the family which was got issued on 15.06.1994 and again renewed on 14.07.1997 by the Food & Civil Supply Circle Office, Nangloi, Delhi. That the defendant and his family members including the defendant were issued Election identity cards on 03.02.1995 by the office of Election Commission of India. That the marriage ceremony of Rajesh, the elder son of the defendant was solemnized on 29.06.1998 and the marriage cards were got printed at the aforesaid residential address. That the defendant got his motor cycle no. DDX 4062 insured vide policy at the aforesaid address which is dated 09.07.1993. That the name of the defendant and other family members were included/entered in the Electoral Roll of Nangloi Constituency in 1994. That the defendant has retired as Sub-Inspector from Delhi Police on 30.06.2006 and the above residential /permanent address was given in all the documents the time of retirement for the purpose of pension. That the electric connection/the meter was got replaced in the year 2001. That the defendant along with his family members and the family members of his elder son Rajesh @ Raj Singh have been continuously residing in suit property VIVEK since the time of Grah Pravesh in 1991 till date and have KUMAR remained in continuous exclusive physical possession of the AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL PAGE 8/44 27.04.2026 Date: 2026.04.27 17:21:53 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH same and residing therein. That the defendant has executed G.P.A. and other relevant documents of half of the portion (100 sq.yds.) in favour of his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh in the year 1993. That the defendant is the rightful, legal owner, occupier and in possession of the aforesaid house and the possession/ownership of the house has never been alienated by the defendant, in favour of any one till date. 5.2. It is futher stated that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lacs only) from Shri Ramesh Parkash, the husband of the plaintiff on 07.06.2006 in the presence of the wife and son Raj Singh @ Rajesh of the defendant to meet the contigency/emergent situation in the family. That on 07.06.2006 at the time of advancing loan Shri Ramesh Parkash had taken the G.P.A., Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Will and payment receipt, which were in favour of the defendant and also of his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh as surety/security with the assurance that the same shall be returned to the defendant at the time of the repayment of the loan. That Sh. Ramesh Parkash, the husband of the plaintiff taking undue advantage of the dire need for money of the defendant also compelled the defendant and his son Raj Singh @ Rajesh to sign/thumb mark on a blank/unprinted stamp paper worth Rs.50/- and assured that the blank stamp paper alongwith the other documents G.P.Α. etc. would be returned at the time of repayment of the loan amount to him. That the loan amount was returned/repaid on 12.07.2006 to Sh. Ramesh Parkash by the Digitally signed by defendant after the loan amount was withdrawn by the defendant VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:

ADDITIONAL WS:-

7. In the additional WS filed on behalf of defendant, it has been specifically denied that defendant had sold the suit property to the husband of the plaintiff on dated: 31.03.2003 by executing General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, registered Receipt, Deed of Will all dated 31.03.2003 and handed over possession of suit property to the husband of the plaintiff Shri Ramesh Prakash who became owner of the suit premises and the husband of the plaintiff have executed the transfer documents favour of the plaintiff on 01.05.2008 and VIVEK received the consideration and the plaintiff since then is the KUMAR owner of same with valuable consideration. All the other AGARWAL averments made in the replication are further denied and again Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2026.04.27 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) 17:22:22 +0530 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 13/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH the averments of original WS has been reiterated. 7.1. It is further stated that the defendant received copy of the plaint documents filed by the plaintiff in the present suit that the answering defendant learnt that the said Shri had Ramesh Prakash misused the aforesaid blank signed stamp papers and plain papers and had created documents showing sale of the suit to a rent property him and also agreement with respect to the suit property by forging and fabricating the said papers. On learning about the same the answering defendant has already instituted a civil suit bearing C.S. No.230/2012 against the plaintiff named above and her husband, Shri Ramesh Prakash, seeking a decree of declaration the documents allegedly executed by the answering defendant in favour of the said Shri Ramesh Prakash and the documents allegedly executed by the said Shri Ramesh Prakash transferring the suit property to his wife, the plaintiff named above, as null and void. It is further stated that the answering defendant had neither sold the suit property to the above named Shri Ramesh Prakash on 31.03.2003 or on any other date nor executed has he ever any G.P.A.. Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit, Receipt of document in or any the said other Shri Ramesh Prakash with respect to suit property. It is further submitted that answering defendant has never entered into any rent agreement, much less a Rent Agreement dated 06.06.2006 with the said Shri Ramesh Prakash with respect to suit property at the rate of Rs.5000/- p.m. or any other amount. The answering VIVEK defendant has neither received any money as consideration sale KUMAR from the said Shri Ramesh Prakash nor has the answering AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 14/44 27.04.2026 Date: 2026.04.27 17:22:27 +0530 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH defendant ever paid any money as rent either to the said Shri Ramesh Prakash or to the plaintiff named above. 7.2. It is further stated that all the documents dated 31.03.2003 and the allegedly defendant fabricated the documents executed dated 06.06.2006. That the said Shri Ramesh Prakash had no legal right or authority to sell or transfer executed or off the suit dispose property in any manner and as such the plaintiff named the suit property on the basis of any document allegedly by the said Shri Ramesh Prakash in her favour on 01.05.2008.

37. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that as the documents Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15 have been produced in original and as the defendant has completely failed to raised any doubt on the genuineness of the said document, I do not find any question on the execution of the said documents. This is also pertinent to mention here in that as reflected from the document Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15, they VIVEK KUMAR have been prepared on the stamp papers dt. 31.03.2003. The said AGARWAL stamp papers bear the date of purchase on the rear side and Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.04.27 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:24:25 +0530 PAGE 34/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH therefore, these documents can be duly presumed to be genuine in view of the presumption provided u/S 114 IEA (119 BSA) and specifically as provided in illustration (e) regarding official acts, illustration (f) regarding a common course of business and illustration (i) as the documents in question were in possession of plaintiff only. On the same lines, it is further observed that as per the contradictory version of the defendant, the said documents were allegedly got signed by the plaintiff from the defendant and his son on 07.06.2006, whereas, these documents Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/15 have been prepared on the stamp papers of the year 2003. The defendant has failed to explain or to extract anything in the cross-examination of PW-1 that how and in what manner, the husband of plaintiff / PW-1 would have been in possession of the stamp papers dt. 31.03.2003 as on 07.06.2006 and how the photograph of the defendant on the said document was in possession of the plaintiff. Similarly regarding the document ExPW1/2, it is observed that it was prepared on one stamp paper dt. 06.06.2006 and said date is mentioned on the rear page of the said document. Now, again the defendant has failed to explain or to extract anything in the cross-examination of PW-1 that how and in what manner, the husband of plaintiff / PW-1 would have been in possession of the stamp papers dt. 06.06.2006 as on 07.06.2006 and how he would know that defendant was coming to him to obtain some loan, for which purpose he would have VIVEK procured the said stamp paper, in advance. It is not the case of KUMAR AGARWAL defendant that plaintiff was working as a professional money lendor, who would have kept the said stamp papers in advance so Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Date: 2026.04.27 (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 17:24:31 +0530 PAGE 35/44 27.04.2026 CS SCJ 732/2014 7156/16 SANTOSH Vs. DALEL SINGH as to get them signed at the time of lending of money.

Note: This judgment contains 44 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL 17:25:28 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West,THC, Delhi/27.04.2026 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), PAGE 44/44 27.04.2026