* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 9th January, 2018.

+ CS(OS) 272/2017 PREM PRAKASH GUPTA ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Bharat Gupta and Mr. Varun Tyagi, Advs.

Versus SANJAY AGGARWAL ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary and Ms. Garima Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit, pleading:

(i) that the plaintiff is 82 years of age and is the owner of property No.47/35, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi admeasuring 666.66 sq.

yds.;

(ii) that the plaintiff, along with his wife and two sons has been residing in the aforesaid property; after the marriage of the plaintiff‟s younger son, the plaintiff allowed the younger son and his wife to reside in a small portion of the house; the younger son of the plaintiff and his wife however made the life of the plaintiff and the plaintiff‟s wife miserable, so much so the elder son of the plaintiff shifted to a tenanted premises;

(iii) that the younger son of the plaintiff and his wife started a chain of litigations against the plaintiff and the plaintiff also sued for recovery of possession of the portion of the property aforesaid in their possession;

(iv) that the behavior of the elder son and his wife also towards the plaintiff was not so good;

(v) that the plaintiff, to teach a lesson to his sons and their wives and without there being any intention on the part of the plaintiff to “bequeath” the property in favour of anyone, executed a Deed of Gift dated 7th December, 2009 in favour of the defendant who is one of the sons of an old friend of the plaintiff;

(vi) that the plaintiff also executed and registered a Will dated 8th December, 2009 bequeathing all his properties including the property aforesaid to the defendant;

(vii) that the plaintiff, in December, 2009 also executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) authorising the defendant to deal with all the properties of the plaintiff;

(viii) that the plaintiff has also given all original documents including original title documents of the property aforesaid to the defendant;

(ix) that the plaintiff did all the aforesaid, only to force his younger son and his wife to fall in line and withdraw the litigations and show love, care and affection to the plaintiff and to force the elder son and his wife to become loving and caring to the plaintiff;

(x) that in the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff did not get the Gift Deed and the GPA registered, despite knowing very well that the Gift Deed and GPA have no value in the eyes of law, without registration;

(xi) that the plaintiff never had intention to gift the property aforesaid to the defendant;

(xii) that the defendant also had no intention to accept or own the property and thus the Gift Deed and GPA were never registered, as the plaintiff had told the defendant that it was all a ploy by the plaintiff to make his sons and daughter-in-law mend their ways;

(xiii) that the defendant was also not given actual, physical possession of the property and only a statement was made, to create fear in the minds of the sons of the plaintiff;

(xiv) that the plaintiff however got the Will in favour of the defendant registered, as the plaintiff knew that the Will can be revoked any time and that till the plaintiff is alive, the defendant will not get any right thereunder;

(xv) that the younger son of the plaintiff, in the year 2014 started living with the plaintiff and became good and caring towards the plaintiff;

(xvi) that the plaintiff asked the defendant to return the original documents, as the plaintiff wanted to bequeath the property in favour of his son-in-law and to execute a Power of Attorney in favour of his son-in-law; the plaintiff also informed the defendant that the plaintiff wanted to cancel and revoke the GPA in favour of the defendant;

(xvii) that the attitude of the defendant changed and the defendant then revealed his true colours; the defendant did not return the original documents;

(xviii) tha