Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ii. On 30.04.2015, when Plaintiff along with her family members came back home after visiting her relative, ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 6 of 65 the Plaintiff found that the Defendant, along with her associates, was sitting in Plaintiff's house after breaking open the lock. Upon being asked, the Defendant told that she was the owner of the house and threatened the Plaintiff to leave the house or else she would drag the Plaintiff's husband in a false rape case. When the Plaintiff went to the Police Station, the Plaintiff was directed by Police Officials to go to Court as this was a property matter.

11. That the Defendant alongwith her associates trespassed after breaking the lock.

12. That a Plaintiff in this respect a written complaint was filed with D.C.P. on 07/05/2015."

In terms of the above-mentioned averments, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant, with her associates, trespassed into the suit property by breaking open the locks of the suit ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 25 of 65 property in absence of the Plaintiff on 30.04.2015 and when the Plaintiff confronted the Defendant, she was threatened that her husband would be implicated in a false rape case. She has stated that the Plaintiff again visited the suit property on 01.05.2015 at 2:00pm, alongwith her husband and father in law and they were confined inside the house by locking the internal door and they were threatened, if they did not settle the matter, the Plaintiff's husband and father in law would be implicated in a false rape case. It is further stated that the Defendant's associate brought the typed and blank documents alongwith stamp papers and forcefully obtained the signatures of the Plaintiff and her father in law.

Therefore, mere absence of suggestions would not come to rescue of the Plaintiff. Even assuming that the aforesaid fact has not been challenged by suggestions, the testimony and evidence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant are to be read as a whole, in order to conclude the factum of proof of their respective contentions. The Defendant has affirmed the contents of written statement in her examination in chief. The Plaintiff has also not specifically confronted the Defendant in the cross-examination with the incidents dated 30.04.2015 and dated 01.05.2015. The Plaintiff has given only one generic suggestion to the Defendant that the Defendant trespassed into the suit property and the signatures of the Plaintiff were obtained forcefully on the threat of implicating the Plaintiff in false cases. The aforesaid suggestion was denied by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has even not suggested that the signatures were obtained upon the threat of implicating the Plaintiff's husband and her father in law in a false rape case, however it was suggested that the Plaintiff would be implicated in a false case, which was not even the case set up by the Plaintiff and further if the aforesaid suggestion is read as admission of the Plaintiff, then the same merely contradicts the case of the Plaintiff. Thus, neither the Plaintiff was given the negative suggestions about the incidents dated 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 nor the specific ingredients of the aforesaid incidents were put forward to the Defendant, in her cross- ________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 30 of 65 examination, when she has affirmed to the contrary in her examination in chief. Therefore, the incidents dated 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 are not proved/disproved by mere absence of suggestions by the Counsels in the cross- examination of the Plaintiff as well as that of the Defendant.

________________________________________________________________ Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) & Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 62 of 65 8.2.8. The Defendant has taken up a false plea of her signatures being obtained by force and by exercising threats of implicating her family members in a false rape case. This Court has discussed in details in discussion under Issue No.1 of the Civ DJ No.613425/2016 that the aforementioned contentions of the Defendant were proven to be false. It has thus been established on record that the Defendant executed the Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 in favour of the Plaintiff and handed over the possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff. Such a course of events does not result in without receiving money by the buyer. The Defendant has executed the receipt of payment in favour of the Plaintiff. In such a case, the onus shifts to the Defendant to explain as to why would she execute the documents and acknowledge the payment thereunder, if the sale consideration was not received. The Defendant does not have any explanation to offer except one, which has already been held as patently false, in terms of discussion under Issue No.1. Therefore, the scale of preponderance of probabilities is titled towards the Plaintiff, in so far as the payment in question is concerned and the Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.