The judgment emphasizes the need for evidence to support allegations of forgery and fraud, and highlights the protection of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 30th May, 2000 of the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.559/1993 cancelling documents Exhibit DW1/1 to DW1/5 and Ex.DW2/1 and of recovery of possession of flat No.34, Cottage Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from the appellant/defendant on payment by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant of Rs.62,000/-.

2. The respondent/plaintiff had instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading:-

(a). that the respondent/plaintiff had been working in Cash Branch in the Central Cottage Industries Emporium, New Delhi;

(b). that there was a Group Housing Society of the employees of the aforesaid Emporium and of which Society the respondent/plaintiff was the member and by virtue of which membership the respondent/plaintiff had been allotted flat no.34 aforesaid and the cost whereof was assessed at Rs.1,05,000/-;

(c). that the respondent/plaintiff had made part payments for the aforesaid flat out of his personal savings and from loan from the Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd.;

(d). that one Shri K.P. Dhingra working as Assistant Manager in the Emporium aforesaid introduced the respondent/plaintiff to Shri Madan Lal Dhingra (husband of the appellant/defendant) as the respondent/plaintiff was in need of money to pay the balance price of the flat aforesaid;

(e). that the said Shri Madan Lal Dhingra, in or about February, 1987, agreed to advance a sum of Rs.62,000/- required by the respondent/plaintiff but in order to secure re-payment, obtained signatures of the respondent/plaintiff on some papers without supplying any copy thereof to the respondent/plaintiff; Shri Madan Lal Dhingra also required the respondent/plaintiff to allow him user of the said flat as his caretaker without any right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever therein; the respondent/plaintiff agreed and allowed the said Shri Madan Lal Dhingra to remain in occupation of the said flat as its caretaker;

(f). that the occupation of Shri Madan Lal Dhingra of the aforesaid flat was as a licensee/caretaker and which came to an end upon his demise in October, 1990; the respondent/plaintiff never granted any license to the widow of Shri Madan Lal Dhingra i.e. the appellant/defendant and as such vide notice dated 26th November, 1990 asked her to remove herself from the said flat by 20th December, 1990;

(g). that the appellant/defendant however started claiming rights in the flat under the documents executed by the respondent/plaintiff in favour of her husband Shri Madan Lal Dhingra;

(h). that the respondent/plaintiff was ready and willing to refund the sum of Rs.62,000/-together with interest as may be payable but the appellant/defendant still refused; and,

(i). that “the said documents” were mere camouflage and were otherwise contrary to the terms and conditions of the grant of the flat to the respondent/plaintiff and were therefore void under the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and did not vest any right, title or interest in Shri Madan Lal Dhingra or after his death in the appellant/defendant in the said flat.

The respondent/plaintiff accordingly sought reliefs, (i) of possession of the flat; (ii) of cancellation of the documents obtained by Shri Madan Lal Dhingra from the respondent/plaintiff in February/March, 1987; and, (iii) an enquiry into mesne profits.

3. The appellant/defendant contested the suit, by filing a written statement, on the grounds:-

(i). that the claim made in the year 1992 of cancellation of documents executed in the year 1987 was barred by time;

(ii). that the suit was not correctly valued for the purposes of Court Fees and jurisdiction;

(iii). denying that the respondent/plaintiff had approached Shri Madan Lal Dhingra for loan and pleading that in fact the respondent/plaintiff had sold the flat to Shri Madan Lal Dhingra and had after receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,5