Fraudulent sale deeds executed under impersonation are void ab initio, establishing that legitimate ownership is upheld in favor of the rightful owner upon definitive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The present suit has been filed for declaration, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, recovery of possession and cancellation of the following illegal sale deeds (i) Sale Deed dated 09.07.2020 [Executed by Lady impersonating as Plaintiff, in favour of Defendant No. 2]; (ii) followed by Sale Deed dated 29.07.2020[Executed by Defendant No. 2, in favour of Defendant No. 3 and Defendant No. 4], both with respect to the Ground Floor consisting of three (3) bedroom with attached bathroom, one Drawing-cum-Dining, Lobby, one (1) Kitchen, Front and Rear Balconies along with one (1) Servant Quarter on the top terrace with common W.C. and two (2) car parking rights in the stilt area with exclusive independent gate (adjoining to Property No. S- 396), along with proportionate, undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the freehold land measuring 204 sq. yds. bearing No. S- 398, situated at Greater Kailash – I, New Delhi -110048 (‘Ground Floor Portion’); and (iii) Sale Deed dated 29.07.2020[Executed by Lady impersonating as Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No. 3 and Defendant No. 4]with respect to rear side stilt area measuring approx. 900 sq. ft. with entrance from front and rear side, along with proportionate undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the freehold land underneath measuring 204 sq. yds., bearing No. S- 398, situated at Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi-110048 (‘Rear Stilt Area’).

Brief Facts

2. The case of the Plaintiff is that she is admittedly the absolute owner of the Ground Floor and Rear Stilt Area (together forming the ‘Suit Property’), having purchased the same for a sale consideration of Rs. 1.77 Crores in 2013 from one Mr. Gurmit Ram Nafri vide registered sale deed dated 18.12.2013. It is stated that the said original sale deed dated 18.12.2013 is in possession of Plaintiff and it matches with the original of the said sale deed dated 18.12.2013 available in records of the Defendant No.5[Sub-Registrar-VA-Hauz Khas].

2.1. It is stated that in July, 2014, sister-in-law of the Plaintiff introduced her to Defendant No.1, who requested the Plaintiff to induct Defendant No.1 as a tenant in the Suit Property. It is stated that the Plaintiff agreed to induct the Defendant No.1 as tenant in the Suit Property for a monthly rent of Rs. 80,000/-, on request of the Defendant No.1. It is stated that Defendant No.1 insisted on not executing any written Lease Deed and to show his bonafide Defendant No.1 paid the entire annual rent in advance. It is stated that the oral tenancy started from mid-July, 2014 and was extended on various occasions till 31.12.2016. The rental up to 31.12.2016 stood paid by the Defendant No.1. 2.2. It is stated that after 31.12.2016 the Plaintiff insisted on registration of a Lease Deed and accordingly a Lease Deed was executed on 06.01.2017 for a period of 11 months till 05.12.2017 and the Defendant No. 1 defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f. January 2017. It is stated that thereafter, the Defendant No.1 in August, 2018 agreed to vacate the Suit Property; he however, executed a Lease Deed dated 24.08.2018 for regularizing the tenancy period from 05.12.2017 till 30.09.2018 and agreed to clear the current and outstanding amount due towards the monthly rental.

2.3. It is stated that however, the Defendant No.1 defaulted in vacating the Suit Property as well as in making payment of the outstanding monthly rentals. It is stated that on 01.10.2018 the Defendant No.1 categorically refused to vacate the Suit Property.

2.4. It is stated that Plaintiff later got to