Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
RAJPAL SINGH TANWAR - Appellant
Versus
KAMAL NANDA - Respondent
RFA No. 672 of 2018 & CM Nos. 32946-47 of 2018
Decided on : 17-08-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Jayant Mehta, Ms. Nupur Goswami and Mr. Sajal Jain, Advocates
The validity of property ownership documents and the requirement for proof of their authenticity and legality.
Headnote:
CPC - Property Dispute - 1908 (CPC) - Section 96 - 3.12.1996, 21.2.1991 - The court discussed the ownership rights of the suit property based on the documentation dated 3.12.1996 and 21.2.1991. The appellant/defendant claimed ownership based on documents dated 21.2.1991, while the respondent/plaintiff relied on documents dated 3.12.1996. The trial court held that the appellant/defendant failed to prove the validity of the documents dated 21.2.1991 and that the documents dated 3.12.1996 were valid in law.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a plot, claiming ownership based on documentation dated 3.12.1996. The appellant/defendant contested the suit, claiming ownership based on documentation dated 21.2.1991. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the appellant/defendant failed to prove the validity of the documents dated 21.2.1991 and that the documents dated 3.12.1996 were valid in law.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the documents dated 21.2.1991 and 3.12.1996, determining the ownership rights of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant/defendant failed to prove the validity of the documents dated 21.2.1991, and the documents dated 3.12.1996 were valid in law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 5.5.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff with respect to possession of the suit property being a plot bearing no.E-8, Kanwar Singh Colony Village Ranhaula, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/1.
2. The subject suit for possession, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction was filed by the respondent/plaintiff pleading ownership of the suit property in terms of the usual documentation being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will, Receipt etc dated 3.12.1996. The original owners of the suit property were four persons namely Smt. Bhan Devi, Sh. Hukum Chand, Sh. Lakhi Ram and Sri Ram. The suit property was sold by these four persons to Smt. Savitri Devi by a registered Sale Deed dated 14.6.1974. Smt. Savitri Devi sold the suit property to Sh. Bhagirath Singh by means of the usual documentation being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will etc dated 20.1.1987. Sh. Bhagirath Singh is the father of Sh. Vikram Singh and from which Sh. Vikram Singh the respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that on the death of Sh. Bhagirath Singh the other legal heirs of Sh. Bhagirath Singh executed a Power of Attorney dated 2.11.1996 in favour of one legal heir Sh. Vikram Singh and who sold the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff on purchase was put in possession of the suit property, and which was a vacant land at that point of time. On 12.5.2007 when the respondent/plaintiff visited the suit property he found that construction was going on and there was a name plate of the appellant/defendant on the newly constructed wall. There was thus filed an earlier suit for injunction by the respondent/plaintiff, but since respondent/plaintiff was dispossessed during the pendency of the earlier injunction suit, and the appellant/defendant had claimed ownership on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, hence the earlier suit was withdrawn on 26.9.2011 and thereafter the subject suit came to be filed.
3. Appellant/defendant contested the suit and claimed ownership of the suit property by means of usual set of documents dated 21.2.1991 being the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Will Receipt etc. Appellant/defendant claimed to have purchased the suit property from Sh. Bhagirath Singh i.e the father of Sh. Vikram Singh. The appellant/defendant claimed to have been put in possession of the suit property by Sh. Bhagirath Singh on 21.2.1991. Appellant/defendant pleaded that the documents in favour of the respondent/plaintiff were forged and fabricated documents. The suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.
4. After pleadings were complete the trial court framed issues and parties led evidence, and these aspects are recorded in paras 9 to 12 of the impugned judgment and these paras read as under:-
“9. After completion of pleadings, vide order dated on 20.02.2014, the following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff, on 03.12.1996, had acquired rights with respect to the suit property and was in pursuance of the documents claimed to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff on 03.12.1996 put into vacant physical possession of the property? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff was from 03.12.1996 till August, 2006 in possession of the suit property? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff, in August, 2006, was dispossessed from the suit property? OPP.
(iv) Whether the defendant had acquired rights in the suit property from Sh. Bhagirath Singh on 21.02.1991 and the defendant is in possession of the suit property since 21.02.1991? OPD.
(v) Whether the son of Sh. Bhagirath Singh through whom the plaintiff claims title to the property was not entitled to transfer any rights in the property owing to
