The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the genuineness of documents and the rights created by virtue of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The appellant No.1, who is an Advocate, states that he has informed Mr. Atar Singh Tokas, counsel for the respondents, and Mr. Tokas informed him that the respondents have taken back the file from him. I am not inclined to adjourn this old appeal any further as this matter is on the Regular Board of this Court since 2.2.2012.

2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal(RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 13.12.2003 dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits with respect to the suit property bearing MCD No.500/23, Plot No.29, Gali No.10, Bhikam Singh Colony, Behind Masjid, Shahdara, Delhi.

3. The facts of this case are that the appellants/plaintiffs by means of usual documents being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will etc all dated 11.2.2002(Power of Attorney and Will being duly registered with the sub-Registrar, Delhi) purchased the rights in the suit property from one Sh. Sadat Ali Khan. Sh. Sadat Ali Khan had purchased the suit property from Smt. Jasbeer Kaur by means of similar set of documents dated 18.12.1998, and some of which documents are registered documents. Smt. Jasbeer Kaur had purchased the property from Sh. Chanan Singh vide similar set of documents dated 3.12.1997. Sh. Chanan Singh was the son of Sardar Dasondha Singh, who had purchased the suit property from the original owner, namely, Shree Ram Sarvaria and Sons Ltd. by means of a registered sale deed dated 16.3.1955. The appellants/plaintiffs claimed that the respondents were illegal occupants/trespassers in possession of the suit property and therefore after putting them to notice of their illegal occupation, the subject suit was filed.

4. The respondents/defendants appeared and contested the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the appellants/plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit property. It was also pleaded that the documents relied upon by the appellants/plaintiffs cannot confer any ownership rights in the suit property. It was also pleaded that the earlier chain of title deeds as relied upon by the appellants/plaintiffs were fabricated documents. The respondents/defendants claimed that the suit property was transferred by one Smt. Sakeena Begum in favour of Mohd. Saleem by means of documents dated 22.5.1989. Mohd. Saleem is thereafter said to have transferred the suit property by means of documents dated 14.6.1991 to one Sh. Vijay Gupta and whereafter by means of the documents dated 23.10.1996, the defendant No.4 had purchased the rights in the suit property.

5. After completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as alleged in P.O. No.1 to 7? 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed? 3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the possession as prayed? 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed? 5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the damages? If so, at what rate and for what period? 6. Relief.”

6. The trial Court has dismissed the suit by arriving at the findings and conclusions under issue Nos.2 to 4 that the appellants/plaintiffs cannot be said to be owners of the property inasmuch as the documents such as the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney etc do not confer ownership rights in the suit property. The trial Court also held that the documents which have been proved and exhibited by the appellants cannot be looked into in the absence of the persons, who executed such documents, having not been summoned to prove these documents.

7. In my opinion, the impugned judgment is illegal, and the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment by decreeing the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs. The jamabandi which has been filed and proved on record by the defe