J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated

16.07.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.13536/2016 by the Court of Additional District Judge-02, District West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, decreeing the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 qua declaration/cancellation of documents, possession, recovery of mesne profit, damages and injunction.

DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES

2. The respondent no.1, namely, Jagannath Sharma (since deceased) filed civil suit against the present appellant and Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. The parties to the dispute and their depiction before the trial court and this court is as shown below:-

4. The inter se relationships of the parties is also shown by the following family tree:

BRIEF FACTS

5. The facts of the case exhibit that one Baldev Raj Sharma was the owner of the suit property situated at House No.C-2/34, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “suit property”). He was visually impaired by birth and remained unmarried until his death on 21.02.2008. The respondent No.1 remained under the impression that the estate of deceased Baldev Raj Sharma shall be devolved upon the legal heirs in equal proportion as he had died intestate. However, he discovered that a gift deed and a Will concerning the property of the deceased had been executed in favour of the appellant and was registered at the office of respondent No.4 i.e. Sub-Registrar.

6. Aggreived thereby, respondent no. 1 moved the trial court for declaration/cancellation of gift deed dated 08.03.2007, possession of suit property, recovery of mesne profit, damages and injunction against the appellant. It is stated by respondent no.1 that deceased Baldev Raj Sharma, the owner of the suit property had died intestate at the age of 74 years, and no instrument was executed by the deceased in respect to his property. The deceased Baldev Raj Sharma was old and suffered from neurological ailments which made him mentally incapacitated.

7. The appellant appeared before the trial court and filed his written statement contesting the plaint on the ground that the deceased, although visually impaired, was not incapacitated. The appellant has placed reliance on his educational and professional background stating that deceased Baldev Raj Sharma was well qualified (M.A in English) and taught in a Blind School, Panchkuian Road, Delhi. It is stated that the deceased was also an astrologer/fortune teller and had many disciples in Delhi. Emphasising on the cordial relationship between them, the appellant stated that the deceased had always treated him as his own son and the appellant had rendered selfless services to him during his lifetime.

8. In the written statement, various other averments were made asserting the validity of the gift deed in question. After framing the issues and recording the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court decreed the civil suit in favour of the respondent no.1 and against the present appellant. Thus, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

SUBMISSIONS

9. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta appearing for the appellant assails the impugned judgment and decree on the following main grounds:-

(i) Trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 60 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 [“Act