IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that a judgment cannot be granted solely based on the absence of a written statement; plaintiffs must prove their claims with evidence.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

I.A. 10758/2023 (under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC by plaintiffs seeking pronouncement of judgment against the defendants)

1. The present suit has been filed seeking following relief:

a) Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring the fraudulent Agreement to Sell allegedly executed by the Plaintiffs in favor of Defendant No 2 dated 13.11.2006 as non-est/illegal, null and void;

b) Declare that the fraudulent Agreement to Sell allegedly executed by the Plaintiffs in favor of Defendant No 2 dated 13.11.2006, does not bind the Plaintiffs;

c) Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring the fraudulent Registered General Power of Attorney executed by the Plaintiffs in favor of Defendant No 2 dated 13.11.2006 as non-est/illegal, null and void;

d) Declare that the fraudulent Registered General Power of Attorney allegedly executed by the Plaintiffs in favor of Defendant No 2 dated 13.11.2006 does not bind the Plaintiffs;

e) Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring the fraudulent Agreement to Sell allegedly executed by Defendant No 2 in favour of Defendant No 1 dated 28.05.2007 as non-est/illegal, null and void;

f) Declare that the fraudulent Agreement to Sell allegedly executed by Defendant No 2 in favour of Defendant No 1 dated 28.05.2007 does not bind the Plaintiffs;

g) Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring the fraudulent Registered General Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1 dated 28.05.2007 as non-est/illegal, null and void;

h) Declare that the fraudulent Registered General Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Defendant No 2 in favour of Defendant No 1 dated 28.05.2007 does not bind the Plaintiffs;

i) Direct the Defendant No.3 and 4 to not take any steps so as to frustrate the rights of the Plaintiffs in the suit property, in any manner;

j) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and or any one acting for and or behalf of the said defendants from altering or in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs, in the suit property or in any manner interfering with the title of the Plaintiffs to the suit property;

k) Award damages of Rs. 50, 00,000/-in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the mental agony, harassment that the Plaintiffs have been subjected to as well as towards costs of litigation that the Plaintiffs have or will have to incur during the tenure of this litigation;

l) Any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.

2. The relevant facts as borne out from the plaint are that the Plaintiffs claim to be the owners of Plot No. 40, Sector 11, Dwarka, New Delhi (herein referred to as the “suit property”). It is stated that the suit property was purchased by the Plaintiffs on the basis of credible, registered documents executed by Sh Bhiku Ram and his wife Smt. Parwati in favor of the Plaintiffs. The said Sh Bhiku Ram and Smt. Parwati were the original allotees of the suit property from the DDA.

3. On the basis of the Perpetual Lease in their favor, Sh Bhiku Ram and Smt. Parwati had executed the (i) Agreement to Sell; (ii) Registered Will; (iii) Registered Special Power of Attorney; (iv) Registered General Power of Attorney; (v) Indemnity bond; (vi) Undertakings; and (vii) Affidavits, in favour of the Plaintiffs.

4. On the strength of aforesaid documents, the Plaintiffs applied for permission from the relevant authorities to carry out basic constructions that were mandatory to be done on leasehold properties. Further, the suit property remained in possession of the Plaintiffs since the date of the execution of the documents.

5. The case of the Plaintiffs is that on 28.01.2020, one Mr. Pramod Garg visited the son of the Plaintiffs -Mr. Udit Chaudhary and informed him that the Defendant no.