SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
Deepak Mehta & Anr – Plaintiffs
Versus
Nirmal Jindal - Defendant
CS(OS) 516 of 2019
Decided on : 15-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs : Mr.Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Mr.Ashish Upadhayay, Mr.Apoorv Sisodia and Mr.Gaurav Raghav, Advs.

Court upheld the validity of plaintiffs' ownership and declared the defendant's claims based on forged documents as illegal, affirming the right to protection against transfer of property.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Ownership dispute - Suit filed to declare Sale Deed dated 12.03.2018 as illegal and obtain permanent injunction. Plaintiffs, having purchased property through valid Sale Deeds (26.05.2017), sought to prove ownership over Suit Property. Defendant's claim based on forged documents; inquiry confirmed the fabrication. (Paras 1, 29, 30, 34)

(B) Injunction - Plaintiffs entitled to protection against transfer of property given fraudulent actions of defendant jeopardizing their ownership rights. Relief for damages rejected due to lack of evidence. (Paras 26, 34)

(C) Ex-Parte Proceedings - Defendant failed to appear, leading to proceedings being conducted in absence of counterarguments. (Paras 16, 30)

Table of Content
1. plaintiffs seek declaration of ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. plaintiffs report forgery and face third-party claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. defendant's ownership documents deemed forged. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. court's procedural handling of the suit. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. arguments presented support plaintiffs’ claims. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. court affirms plaintiffs' ownership based on evidence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
7. judgment in favor of plaintiffs with specific orders. (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. The present Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of declaration that the Sale Deed dated 12.03.2018 registered on 12.03.2018 vide Registration No. 1390 in Book No.1 Volume No. 3256 on pages 53 to 63 in respect of property bearing No. WZ-14, area measuring 250 sq. yds. out of Khasra No. 254, 276, 277 and 278 situated in Village Madipur, Indra Park, Delhi, which is presently known as WZ-14, Hari Singh Park, New Delhi-110056 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’) is illegal, null and void, and that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Suit Property. The plaintiffs also seek the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from executing any documents transferring or creating any kind of charge, encumbrance or third-party interest in the Suit Property. The plaintiffs further seek a decree of recovery of damages of Rs.40,00,000/- from the defendant and the costs of the Suit.

Case of the Plaintiffs:

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs had purchased half undivided share each in the entire free-hold built-up Suit Property from Sh. Shiv Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Jage Ram Gupta vide registered Sale Deed dated 26.05.2017.

3. The Sale Deed of half undivided share of the Suit Property was executed in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 on 26.05.2017 registered on 26.05.2017 vide Registered Sale Deed No. 2269 in Book No. 1 Vol. No. 3041 on Page Nos. 154 to 164 before the Sub Registrar IIA, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (Ex PW1/C). The Sale Deed of the remaining half undivided share of the Suit Property was executed in favour of the plaintiff no. 2 on 26.05.2017 registered on 26.05.2017 vide Registered Sale Deed No. 2270 in Book No. 1 Vol. No, 3041 on Page Nos. 165 to 175 before the Sub Registrar IIA, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (Ex. PW 1/D)

4. The plaintiffs claim that along with the Sale Deeds, the original/certified chain of documents of ownership were also handed over to the plaintiffs by the erstwhile owner, Sh. Shiv Kumar Gupta. The plaintiffs also claim that since 26.05.2017, they are in physical possession of the Suit Property.

5. Tracing the chain of ownership of the Suit Property, the plaintiffs claim that:

a. The Suit Property was originally a part of the land comprising of 24 Bigha in Khasra Nos. 254, 276, 277 and 278 situated in Village Madipur, Delhi, which was co-owned by Sh. Jagdish, Sh. Jogi, and Sh. Jai Narain, who were the sons of late Sh. Nathan.

b. In the year 1971, two of the abovementioned co-owners, that is, Sh. Jagdish and Sh. Jogi, executed a Registered General Power of Attorney dated 06.08.1971 registered on 07.09.1971 as document no. 2586 with the Sub Registrar-II, Delhi (Ex. PW1/E) in favour of their brother namely, Sh. Jai Narain, whereby they sold/transferred their share in the said land in favour of Sh. Jai Narain.

c. Sh. Jai Narain then sold 5 Bighas out of 24 Bighas of the said land to Sh. Bahadur Singh and Sh. Mohan Lal, both sons of Sh. Net Ram, and to Sh. Raj Singh and Sh. Kishan, both sons of Sh. Ram Pat, vide Registered Sale Deed dated 13.09.1971 registered on 14.09.1971 having Registration No. 10920 in addl. Book No. 1 Volume No. 1519 on pages 169 to 172 (Ex. PW1/F)

d. Subsequently, Sh. Raj Singh and Sh. Kishan executed a General Power of Attorney dated 23.09.1971 in respect of their share of the 5 Bigas out of 24 Bigas of the said land in favour of Sh. Bahadur Singh and Sh. Mohan Lal.

e.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top