The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for detailed adjudication and factual inquiry in property disputes, especially in cases involving unregistered documents and specific performance decrees.

JUDGMENT :

1. This judgment has been pronounced through video conferencing.

2. The present appeal challenges the impugned order dated 13th August, 2020, by which the Executing Court has rejected the objections filed by the Appellant under Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 CPC. The case of the Appellant is that she had purchased the property bearing no. S-18/18, Jogabai Extension, Near Mumtaz Masjid, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025 (hereinafter, “suit property”) on 21st June, 2012, by way of General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Purchase, Affidavit, Will, Possession letter and Receipt of Money for a consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-. The said documents were executed by Mr. Dilawar Hussain Malik on 2nd July, 2012.

3. On the other hand, the case of the Respondents/Decree holders is that they had purchased the property from Mr. Dilawar Hussain Malik and his wife Ms. Nazma Malik vide documents dated 2nd July 2012. They had executed an Agreement to Sell and Receipt. The agreed consideration was Rs. 6,00,000/- for the said property, out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid to the seller. The Respondents filed a suit for specific performance and the Defendants i.e., Mrs. and Mr. Malik, remained ex-parte. They did not file any pleadings and an ex-parte decree for specific performance was passed on 11th November, 2013 by the Trial Court, in favour of the Respondents. The remaining amount of consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- was deposited with the trial court at the time of drawing up of the decree.

4. When the decree holders sought execution of the decree, the Appellant filed objections, which were rejected. The reasoning of the Executing Court for rejecting these objections was that all the documents relied upon by the Appellant are unregistered, and owing to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps and Industries v. State of Haryana [183 (2011) DLT 1 (SC)], no title can be conferred upon the Appellant, based on unregistered documents. Further, the Court held that no trial would be required as even if these documents are taken on file as evidence, by virtue of them being unregistered documents, they would not be valid and would confer no title. Accordingly the court held that no trial would be required and the objections were dismissed.

Submissions

5. When the matter was heard at the preliminary stage, an apprehension had been expressed by the ld. counsel for the Respondents/Decree holders, that the documents of the Appellant are forged. As per the RTI records, the stamp paper on the basis of which the Appellant claimed to have purchased were sold only on 10th July, 2012 and 27th August, 2012. Thus, the counsel for the Respondents submitted that the date of the documents being 21st June, 2012, in fact shows that the documents relied upon are forged and completely illegal. In view thereof, the matter was taken up in physical Court and the original documents were summoned. Both the parties have filed their original documents on record and both are retained with the court in a sealed cover.

Appellant’s Submissions:

6. Mr. Ansari, ld. counsel for the Appellant submits that as per Order XXI Rule 97, read with Rule 101 and 103 of the CPC, objections have to be tried like a suit and hence a trial is essentially required. He submits that the prayers of the Appellant in their objections to the execution are in the nature of declaration of right and title in the suit property, and the same requires to be adjudicated upon after proper cross examination. He further submits that the Court has to determine as to who holds the better title between the Appellant and the Respondents.

7. Reliance is placed by ld. counsel for the Appellant on Vikas Wadhwa v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. [256 (2019) DLT 787], upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [vide order dated 03/07/2019 in SLP (C) Diary No. 19663/2019], Rajeev Dutta and ors. v. Punjab Waqf Board [(2003) AIHC 3144], Noorduddin v. Dr. K.L. Anand [(1995) 1 SCC 242], Shreenath & Anr. v. Rajesh & Ors. [AIR 1998 SC 18