JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 96 CPC challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in suit bearing CS No.75294/2016 titled Ramesh Chand v. Satya Bhushan and Another, whereby the suit has been dismissed. Appellant was the Plaintiff before the Trial Court while Respondents No.1 and 2 were the Defendants and parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court.

2. Plaintiff and Respondent No.1 herein/Defendant No.1 are real brothers. A suit for partition, rendition of accounts and injunction was filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant No.1. Subsequently, DDA was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RFA 3/2020 Page 1 of 33 impleaded as Defendant No.2 on 06.08.2009 and an additional relief of declaration and cancellation of Conveyance Deed was added by amendment of the plaint. Case of the Plaintiff was that one Kuldeep Rai was the original allottee and in possession of Plot No.326, B-Block, CPWD, Government Servant Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Pitampura, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”). It was claimed that on 22.08.1985, vide an Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, etc., Kuldeep Rai sold the property for a consideration of Rs.47,000/-, which was paid equally by Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and whereas Agreement to Sell, Will and other documents were executed in favour of Defendant No.1 but Power of Attorneys (GPA and SPA) were executed in favour of Plaintiff and the latter were registered at NOIDA on 09.12.1985 and all original documents of the suit property were kept by Defendant No.1.

3. It was claimed that subsequently a single storey house was constructed on the plot with equal contribution by both brothers. An application was made by the Plaintiff in August, 1986 to DESU for installation of a new electricity connection at the suit property and another application was preferred in October 1986, for a gas connection. Fiat car purchased by the Plaintiff in 1990 always remained parked in a portion of the suit property and these facts are pointers of possession and part- ownership of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff also averred that there were two more brothers of the parties but no one except the Plaintiff was residing with the parents and looking after them and since the parents did not want to shift to the suit property, Plaintiff continued to reside with them at House No.611/38, Tri Nagar, Delhi. Suit filed by Defendant No.1 for possession qua Tri Nagar property against the Plaintiff was dismissed by the concerned Court.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RFA 3/2020 Page 2 of 33

4. It is averred that when Defendant No.1 refused to partition the suit property, notice dated 01.07.2004 was sent to him by the Plaintiff and in reply dated 09.08.2004, Defendant No.1 claimed that he had got the suit property converted into freehold from DDA but no details were furnished. Getting no favourable response from Defendant No. 1, Plaintiff filed the suit, from which the present appeal arises.

5. Contentions of the Plaintiff before the Trial Court were that: (a) Plaintiff was the registered Power of Attorney Holder of the seller Kuldeep Rai and thus any Conveyance Deed procured from DDA by Defendant No. 1 was a forged and fabricated document and could not affect the rights of the Plaintiff, who had never executed any document in support of conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold; (b) Agreement to Sell produced by Defendant No.1 in Court was also forged and the name of Defendant No.1 was included in the Agreement after forging the signatures of Kuldeep Rai on the third page and getting the same witnessed by another set of witnesses, different from the initial ones; (c) the act of submitting the Agreement to Sell to the Collector of Stamps in 1994 by Defendant No.1, without any cause or occasion, was only to support his false case that the property had been sold to him