Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Sardar Daljit Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sardar Inderjit Singh Khuman – Respondent
RFA Nos. 875 of 2016, 38, 39 of 2017 and CM APPL. Nos. 8942, 8994, 15331 of 2017, 22338 of 2018
Decided On : 16-08-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. J.P. Sengh, Mr. Hitender Kapur, Mr. Sagar Chawla, Ms. Manisha Mehta, Ms. Mrigna Shekher.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Ms. Shobhana Takial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of validity and enforceability of a registered sale deed under the Registration Act, and the onus of proving forgery lying with the party disputing the validity of the document.
Headnote:
Forgery - Property Dispute - Sale Deed - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Registration Act, 1908 - The court held that the sale deed was valid and legally recognized, vesting ownership rights in the Plaintiff. The Defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving forgery, and the sale deed carried a presumption of validity under the Registration Act. The Plaintiff was granted a decree for possession and mandatory injunction, and the suits for declaration and partition were dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff claimed ownership of a property and filed a suit for possession, injunction, and recovery of mesne profits. The Defendants disputed the ownership, alleging that the sale deed was forged and fabricated. Multiple suits were filed by both parties, leading to a property dispute and legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed was valid and legally recognized, vesting ownership rights in the Plaintiff. The Defendants failed to prove forgery, and the sale deed carried a presumption of validity under the Registration Act. The Plaintiff was granted a decree for possession and mandatory injunction, and the suits for declaration and partition were dismissed. The court also set aside the decree for mesne profits, as the Plaintiff had not asserted his ownership prior to 2005.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the sale deed, ownership of the property, entitlement to possession, mesne profits, and the suits for declaration and partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the Defendants to prove forgery, the presumption of validity under the Registration Act, and the independent evidence from various governmental authorities establishing the Plaintiff's ownership. The court also considered the lack of assertion of ownership by the Plaintiff prior to 2005 in setting aside the decree for mesne profits.
Final Decision: The Plaintiff was granted a decree for possession and mandatory injunction, and the suits for declaration and partition were dismissed. The decree for mesne profits was set aside. The Defendants were directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the Plaintiff within 8 weeks.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. Late Sh. Ishar Singh Khuman was the owner of property bearing no. GA/10, G Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110056. He had acquired the property in the year 1954. He was married to Late Smt. Swaran Kaur, with whom he had a son-Sh. Inderjit Singh Khuman (hereinafter Plaintiff) and after the demise of his first wife, he was married to Smt. Prabhjot Kaur, with whom he had three sons and one daughter. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit property and that the family used to live together in the suit property. He claimed that he had purchased the suit property from his father vide Registered sale deed dated 11th March 1969. However, the Plaintiff had got married in 1973 and had shifted out of the house and thereafter moved to Australia. In 2005, when the Plaintiff decided that he wished to come back to India and live in the suit property, the Defendants created hindrances and did not allow him to begin renovation of the property. He was then forced to send notice dated 20th April, 2005 which was replied to by the Defendants vide letter dated 26th April, 2005, wherein the Defendants claimed to be the co-owners. Some of the possessions of the Defendants were also lying in the suit property. Hence, the Plaintiff filed a suit for possession, prohibitory injunction as also recovery of mesne profits.
2. The Defendants, in the said suit claimed that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the property, but it was owned by their father - Late Sh. Ishar Singh Khuman. It was further claimed that after the death of the father, all the legal heirs are entitled to equal share in the suit property. The sale deed dated 11th March, 1969 relied upon by the Plaintiff by which the father, was claimed to have sold the property to the Plaintiff was alleged to be a forged and fabricated document, which was manipulated by the Plaintiff. It was claimed that one of the witnesses who had attested the sale deed had filed an affidavit before the High Court denying that he had witnessed the sale deed and also denied the signatures on the same. The Defendants claimed that most of the suit property was in their possession and use and the Plaintiff did not have any ownership rights. Complaints and counter complaints had been lodged with the police by the parties.
3. The suit was originally filed by the Plaintiff only against his three brothers. However, thereafter, the Plaintiff amended the suit and impleaded his step-mother. The pleadings captured above are on the basis of the amended plaints and the amended written statements. Initially, on 24th January, 2008, the following issues were framed:
“1. Whether the property in question as claimed in the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court? (OPD)
2. Whether the plaint has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD)
3. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 R 11 CPC? (OPD)
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (OPD)
5. Whether the sale deed in question is forged and fabricated by the plaintiff in order to grab the suit property? (OPD)
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the portion of the suit property as claimed in the suit? (OPP)
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of injunctions as claimed in the suit? (OPP)
8. Relief.”
4. Almost immediately after filing of the suit for possession, a suit for partition and permanent injunction was filed by the step mother and the step brothers of Sh. Inderjit Singh Khuman. In the said suit, a decree of partition was prayed in respect of the suit property, along with an injunction seeking to restrain Sh. Inderjit Singh Khuman from dispossessing his brothers and mother from the suit property. This second suit, which was instituted as CS (OS) 696/2005 in the Delhi High Court but was thereafter transferred to the District Court, is referred to as the partition suit, for the sake of brevity.
5. In the meantime, ano
