%

03.01.2024

1.

This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 12

May

2016

passed

by

the

learned

Additional

District

Judge,

Karkardooma (“the learned ADJ”) in RCA 40/16/11 (Kuchchi & ors

v. Daulati & ors).

2.

I have heard Ms. Sangeeta Bharti, learned Counsel for the

appellants,

Tyagi,

learned

Counsel

for

the

respondents, at some length.

3.

Ms. Bharti has drawn my attention to the suggested questions of

law as filed with the present appeal.

Ms. Bharti has pointed out that

the fulcrum of the controversy in issue is whether the appellants, as

the defendants before the learned trial court, were able to demonstrate

transfer of title in the property situated at House No. 1104, New

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/01/2024 at 18:02:22

Page 2 of 6

Usman Pur, Delhi (hereinafter the “suit property”).

4.

The appellants had produced, before the learned trial court as

well as before the first appellate court, a Will, a Power of Attorney, a

GPA and an agreement to sell, and was primarily relying on a receipt

for ₹ 50,000, which was purportedly the consideration paid by the

appellants to the respondents for transfer of title in the suit property.

The said receipt bore three thumb impressions at points D-1, D-2 and

D-3 which, according to the appellants, were of late Makua Ram, who

was the pre-deceased husband of the deceased Respondent 1.

5.

The appellants’ case was that the amount of ₹ 50,000 had been

paid to Makua Ram as consideration for purchasing the suit property.

6.

Both the courts below have examined the receipt at some

length.

However,

the

findings

of

the

courts

below

require

consideration.

7.

Para 27 of the judgment of the learned CCJ-cum-ARC(East)

reads thus:

“27.

However, it is worth to be seen that as per defendants all

the documents i.e. Ex.PW2/Dl to Ex.PW2/D5 were executed by

Makua Ram on 24/07/1989. It is also stated by DW-3 and DW-4

that Makua Ram had received Rs.50,000/- and had executed the

receipt alongwith other documents i.e. GPA, agreement and

affidavit. Now, the question arises that if Makua Ram did not put

his thumb impression as per contentions of defendants on the

receipt at point Dl, D2 and D3, then who put his thumb

impressions in the name of late Makua Ram? Question also arises

that if Makua Ram actually executed these documents and had

signed these documents, then why would he not put his thumb

impression, if so required and as shown in the receipt? There

cannot be a valid excuse for putting thumb impression of a

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/01/2024 at 18:02:22

Page 3 of 6

different person in the name of Makua Ram and to claim that

Makua Ram had also signed this document (receipt) alongwith

other documents and had executed these documents validly.

Further more, if statement of DW-5 is perused, one can find that he

has stated regarding requirement of photographs of executant and

witnesses and their identity proofs before registration of document

including receipt. This witness had come alongwith original record

of registered receipt i.e. Ex.PW2/Dl and deposed that this

document was shown registered in the register of his office, but

there was no photograph of identity proof of executant and

witnesses. This scenario also raises doubt over the legitimacy of

Ex.PW2/D2.

Further more, it is worth to mention that DW-2, DW-3 and

DW-4 are sons of defendant no. 1 and all of them in their affidavits

have deposed that Makua Ram put his signatures at point A on all

documents and also put his thumb impressions at point B on

Ex.DWl/A. All these documents mentioned herein above have

been referred by them as Ex.DWl/A to Ex.DWl/D and Ex.DWl/I.

These are same documents which have also been exhibited as

Ex.PW2/D1 to Ex.PW2/D5. Such statement of these three brothers

i.e. son of