1 IN THE COURT OF SHRI [ENTITY] ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 1 TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. RCA No. 63/200[SECTION] Unique ID no. 02401C07[SECTION]211200[SECTION] 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] 2. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] Both R/o H. No. 301[SECTION], Gali Masjid Khajoor, Dharampura, Delhi. Appellant Versus 1. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh [ENTITY] 2. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] (since deceased, now represented through the respondent no. 1 Smt. [ENTITY]) R/o H. No. D6, Vijay Colony, New Usman Pur, Village Ghonda Gujran Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi. Respondents Date of institution of the appeal : 01.09.200[SECTION] Arguments concluded : 16.0[SECTION].2013 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.0[SECTION].2013 RCA No. 63/200[SECTION] [ENTITY] & Anr. Vs. Rajrani & Anr. Page 1 of 24 2 JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.200[SECTION] passed in [CASE NUMBER] for declaration, possession and permanent injunction/ mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed. The appellants were the defendant nos.1 and 2 respectively in the suit and the respondents were the plaintiffs.
2. Briefly stated, the necessary facts are that the suit was instituted on 1[SECTION].03.19[SECTION]6 by the respondents stating that the respondent no.2 (Shri [ENTITY]) is the fatherinlaw of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 ([ENTITY]) had sold her share in an agricultural land about 23 years before filing the suit for about Rs.4000/. Out of the said sale proceeds a plot measuring 200 sq. yards comprised in Khasra No.[SECTION]1[SECTION] situated at Village Ghonda Gujran, Khadar, Ilaka Shahdra, Delhi was purchased by the respondent no.1 on 0[SECTION].06.1966 for Rs. 1000/. The same was purchased in the name of the respondent no.2 on account of love, affection and respect. Mutation was done in the records of MCD. The respondent no. 2 vide his Will dated 19.0[SECTION].1974 bequeathed the same in favour of the respondent no.1. Respondent no. 2 died on 02.0[SECTION].19[SECTION]7 (during the pendency of the suit). The appellants staked a claim to the suit property alleging that they had purchased half of the portion of the suit property measuring 100 sq. yards on the Eastern side vide documents (Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Receipt and Affidavit) dated 19.09.19[SECTION][SECTION]. Thus the plaintiff sought a declaration to declare the said documents as null and void; decree of possession; permanent and mandatory injuction.
3. The Appellant/Defendants filed their written statement in which they pleaded that the Respondent/Plaintiff No.2 had sold the suit property to the Appellant/Defendant No.2 viz. Smt. [ENTITY] for an amount of Rs. 2[SECTION],000/ and the Respondent/Plaintiff No. 2 executed certain sale documents i.e. General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and receipt for an amount of Rs. 2[SECTION],000/ dated 19.09.19[SECTION][SECTION]. The Receipt was got registered by the Respondent/Plaintiff No. 2 in office of Sub Registrar, Delhi vide registration No. 11900 in Book No. IV, Vol. No. 112[SECTION] on Page 116 dated 19.09.19[SECTION][SECTION]. Since the date of purchase, the Appellants/Defendants are in the actual physical possession, use, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property and invested in its construction etc. The stand of the appellants is that the Respondent/Plaintiff No. 2, in his life time, never cancelled/revoked the General Power of Attorney in favour of the Appellant/Defendant No.2 and other documents in favour of the Appellant/Defendant No.2 which were executed by the Respondent/Plaintiff No. 2 on 19.09.19[SECTION][SECTION]. The suit filed by the respondents is false.
4. The Respondents/Plaintiffs filed their replication to the written statement filed by the Appellant/Defendants and refuted the averments of the written statement.
[SECTION]. The Ld. Trial Court framed the following issues on 30.03.1993: Issue No. 1 : Whether the Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?
Issue No.2 : Whether the Plaintiff is not the owner of the property in suit as per Preliminary Objection No. 2 of the Written Statement?
Issue No. 3 : Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?
Issue No. 4 : Whether the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit Property?
Issue No. [SECTION] : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to declaration and injunction as prayed for?
Issue No. 6 : Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property?
Issue No. 7 : Relief.
6. After the framing of the issues, both of the parties produced their respective witnesses. The Respondent/Plaintiffs produced one Shri [ENTITY], Shri [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY], Shri [ENTITY] and Shri [ENTITY]. On the other side, the Appellant/Defendants produced their witnesses namely Shri [ENTITY], Smt. [ENTITY], one Shri [ENTITY] and Shri [ENTITY].
7. The appellant is aggrieved from the judgment and decree.
[SECTION]. I have heard Shri [ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri [ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for the respondents. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the parties have copiously read from the pleadings, evidence and judgment of the Ld. Trial Court.
9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that out and out the suit of the plaintiff is a bundle of lies. The true facts are that Late Shri [ENTITY] (the Respondent/Plaintiff No. 2) was the owner of the property bearing No. D6, Vijay Colony, (also known as Jagjit Nagar and New Usman Pur), Delhi measuring 200 sq. yds, out which he had sold a piece of land measuring 100 sq. yds. to the Appellant (Defendant No. 2) Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Shri [ENTITY] for an amount of Rs. 2[SECTION],000/ and executed certain sale documents in favour of the Appellant/Defendant No. 2 executed on 19.09.19[SECTION][SECTION]. These documents were General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and a Receipt in respect of the said half portion of the entire property measuring 200 sq. yds, bearing no. D6, Vijay Colony, New Usman Pur, Delhi. The suit property has since been and is in the actual physical possession, use, occupation and enjoyment of the Appellant/Defendants since the date of the purchase of the suit property. The Appellants/Defendants have raised the construction of one shop covered with roof, one covered gallery having gate, walls of room upto height 6 ft. to 9ft. on all sides and also raised a 9 ft. wall throughout length wise dividing the eastern and western side of the plot.
10. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that Late Shri [ENTITY] was the father of the Appellant/defendant No.1 and the fatherinlaw of the Appellant/Defendant No.2 (Smt. [ENTITY]) as she is the wife of the brother of the Appellant/Defendant No.1, namely Shri [ENTITY]. In this way the dispute is amongst the family members of Late Shri [ENTITY]. The Receipt was got registered with the Sub Registrar, Delhi vide registration no. 11900 in Book No, IV, Vol. No. 112[SECTION] on page 116 dated 19.09.19[SECTION][SECTION]. Thus the Appellant/Defendant No.2 - Smt. [ENTITY] is the absolute owner of the suit property on the basis of the documents which were executed by the Respondent/Plaintiff No. 2. Late Shri [ENTITY] in favour of the Appellant/Defendant No.2 - Smt. [ENTITY] in respect of the suit property.
11. It is next submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Respondent/Plaintiffs became dishonest and filed the above suit against the Appellant/Defendants in respect of the suit property. The Respondent/Plaintiffs falsely took a plea that the suit property was purchased by the respondent/Plaintiff no.2 - Smt. [ENTITY] from the money provided by the Respondent/Plaintiff No. 1 to the Respondent/Plaintiff No.2. The Respondent/Plaintiff No. 1 pleaded that she inherited an agricultural land which was situated in Vill. Sarogipura Guleri, in Teh. Bah, Distt. Agra UP after the death of her mother. However it is not possible to take on face value that for such a long time the money would have been available with her as the purchase of the property is much later.
12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the said land was more than 20 Bighas which came to the share of the Respondent/Plaintiff No.1 and the said land was disposed off by the Respondent/Plaintiff No.1 by sale for about Rs. 4000/. She further pleaded that the Respondent/Plaintiff No. 1 paid the said amount of Rs. 4000/ to the Respondent/Plaintiff No. 2 purchased the property in dispute for an amount of re.1000/ on 0[SECTION].06.1966 from one Shri [ENTITY] vide registered Sale Deed dated 0[SECTION].06.1966. This is again quite unnatural and untrue.
13. Arguing further Ld. Counsel for the appellant stated that the stand of the Respondent/Plaintiff No.1 is also that the suit property was purchased in the name of the Respondent/Plaintiff No.2 because of love and affection as the Respondent/Plaintiff No.1. According to the Respondent/Plaintiffs, the amount was spent by the Respondent/Plaintiff No.1 for the purchase of the suit property but the documents were made in the name of the Respondent/Plaintiff No.2. The evidence of the case does not establish this. The further stand of the Respondent/Plaintiff No.1 is that the Respondent/Plaintiff No.2 had executed a registered will in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff No.1 on 0[SECTION].03.19[SECTION]6 and after the death of the Respondent/Plaintiff No.2, the Respondent/Plaintiff No.1 has become the owner of the suit property by virtue of the said Will dated 0[SECTION].03.19[SECTION]6. This stand is also not established.
14. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was originally filed and Shri [ENTITY] joined as plaintiff no. 2. The respondent [ENTITY] never sought the relief of declaration as the real owner. At least during the life time of Shri [ENTITY] the Will could not have been relied upon. The plaintiff no. 2 has not filed the case on his own volition but has been way laid to file the same. The averments of Will of [ENTITY] are conspicuous by absence. Atleast on the date of institution of the suit, the respondent no. 1 was not the recorded owner. She was not a Class I legal heir of Shri [ENTITY] and had no authority to continue with the suit. No probate of Will was obtained.
1[SECTION]. The Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that transfer of ownership can be only through sale documents, however there is no finding in respect of the documents relied upon by the appellant like agreement to sell, GPA, etc. Even the Judgment of [PRECEDENT] does not altogether makes documents like GPA, Agreement to Sell totally redundant. These types of transactions have been recognized and accepted, The judgment is prospective and cannot be applied to the case of the appellant.
16. In fact the respondent no. 1 had no right to join the suit and thus had no locus standi. On the date of filing of the suit she was not the recorded owner of the suit property. The impugned judgment is against the law and facts. The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 had sold the suit property to the Appellant / defendant no. 2 Smt. [ENTITY] on 19.09.19[SECTION][SECTION] and had executed certain sale documents in favour of the Appellant / defendant no. 2 in respect of the suit property after having taken the sale consideration amount of Rs. 2[SECTION],000/ from the Appellant / defendant no. 2. Once the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 had sold the suit property to the appellant / defendant no. 2, then the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 was not permitted by the law to challenge the documents which were executed by him in favour of the appellant / defendant no. 2 in respect of the suit property. As per the provisions of law of estoppel, the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 was not entitled to challenge the documents which were executed by him in favour of the appellant / defendant no. 2 in respect of the suit property. Moreover since 19.09.0[SECTION], the appellant / defendant no. 2 was in actual physical possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the suit property and the appellant / defendant no. 2 had raised the construction on the suit property from her own resources.
17. It is further submitted by the appellant that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that initially the suit property was not purchased by the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 from the money of the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 from the money of the respondent / plaintiff no. 1 as falsely alleged by the respondent / plaintiff no. 1. How the money which was realized in 1961 would have been available in 1966. The Ld. Trial Court ignored the fact that the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 resided with the appellant / defendants upto January 19[SECTION]6 and in the month of February, 1996, the respondent / plaintiff no. 1 and her family member misguided the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 and took him from the residence of the appellant / defendants and compelled him to file the false suit in question against the appellant / defendants. Even if the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 had wrongly sold the suit property to the appellant / defendant no. 2 on 19.09.[SECTION][SECTION], the respondent / plaintiff no. 2 did not take any immediate / soon steps against the appellant / defendant no.2. The suit is also hit by the [ACT]. The appellant is also entitled on the basis of doctrine of part performance by virtue of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The suit has also not been properly valued by the respondents.
1[SECTION]. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has committed a grave error and the judgment is based upon presumptions and conjectures only.
19. Refuting the arguments of appellants, Ld. Counsel for the respondent stated that once the plaintiff no. 2 has himself stated in the plaint that the suit property was purchased out of the funds provided by the respondent/plaintiff no. 2, the matter ends there. There was no dispute between the coplaintiffs. The locus standi of the plaintiff no. 2/respondent is established by the factum of being joined as co plaintiff by the plaintiff no. 1 and by virtue of his Will. The plaintiff no. 1 has categorically denied the transaction and documents propounded by the appellant. The [ACT] is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the transaction is prior to 19[SECTION][SECTION] the date of coming into force of the Act. Even this plea was not raised before the Ld. Trial Court. Plea of part performance was also taken before the Ld. Trial Court by the appellant. The suit has been properly valued. The evidence in the matter supports the case of the respondents whereas the appellant has failed to prove her defence. Other factual arguments are refuted and it is submitted that the appellant has no case at all; is travelling beyond the pleadings and evidence while making the submissions and the judgment of Ld. Trial Court is correct.
20. I have considered the rival submissions and the records of the Ld. Trial Court.
21. In a civil case the pleadings of the foundation of the case. The object and raison d'etre of pleadings is to give notice to the adversary as to the kind of case it has to meet. No party has a right to travel beyond the pleadings or to lead evidence on the aspect which has not been made the basis of its attack or defence in the suit. However the pleadings require a liberal construction and on this aspect the law is well enunciated in the judgment of Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College AIR 19[SECTION]7 SC1242 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has pronounced how to appreciate the pleadings and evidence as under: "6. The question which falls for consideration is whether the respondents in their written statement have raised the necessary pleading that the license was irrevocable as contemplated by [SECTION] of the Act and, if so, is there any evidence on record to support that plea. It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of the pleadings, instead the Court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal. In Bhagwati Prasad v. Shri Chandramaul, (1966) 2 SCR 2[SECTION]6 : (AIR 1966 SC 73[SECTION]) a Constitution Bench of this Court considering this question observed (at p. 73[SECTION] of AIR) :
"If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely in the issues, and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is : did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another."
22. Thus at the appellate stage the appellant cannot set up a case different from his pleadings or the evidence on record.
23. The plea of application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION] is to be considered. [SECTION] of the said Act reads as under: "1. Short title, extent and commencement. (1) This Act may be called the Benami Transactions (Pro hibition) Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION].
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
(3) The provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 19th day of May, 19[SECTION][SECTION]."
24. The said Act came into force on [SECTION]th day of September, 19[SECTION][SECTION]. Thus it is not applicable to the present case as the transaction in ques tion dates back to 0[SECTION].06.1966. The Act is prospective in operation. Thus the plea of the appellant as to the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 19[SECTION][SECTION] is without any force.
2[SECTION]. As far as the plea of doctrine of part performance is concerned, a recourse to [SECTION] of the [ACT] may be had as under: "[SECTION]3A. Part performance. Where any person con tracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable cer tainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part per formance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been re gistered, or, where there is an instrument of trans fer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claim ing under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof."
26. The sine qua non for the application of the above provision is that it must be specifically set up as a defence or right. The plea of conspicuous by absence before the Ld. Trial Court.
27. In adversarial litigation, the tug is war is between two parties who attempt to outwit each other. Though the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff (who seeks a judgment in his favour propounding a certain legal right) the situation may change keeping in view the rival pleading and the respective stands taken by the parties. The onus of proof becomes dynamic in this process and continues to shift in the course of the trial.
2[SECTION]. The hinge point or moot question in this case, who has the better title to the suit property as the appellant and the respondent no. 2 both have staked claim of ownership. The Court has to decide the lis between the contesting parties (i.e. in personum) and not to decide the question of absolute title of any of the parties against the world at large (i.e. in rem). Thus it is not on the absolute plain that the claims of the parties have to be tested. In fact, the scope of inquiry is on a relative plain. Thus the entire evidence is to be sifted to find out as to who among the contesting parties have been able to lay a better claim.
29. In Smt. Rebti Devi vs. Ram Dutt AIR 199[SECTION] SC 310 it has held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that once both the sides have lead the evidence question of burden of proof pales into insignificance.
30. In all human endeavors, as we mortals are, absolute certainty is a myth. In its place the law has provided a working alternative in the doctrine of 'preponderance of probability' i.e. to find out amongst the various rival versions which is more probable having regard to the common course of events etc.
31. Hon'ble the High Court of Delhi in Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Limited vs. Beta Engineers 1[SECTION][SECTION] (2012) DLT 373 has been held that " a civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. A civil court puts all the evidence which have been led in a melting pot so as to determine the final picture which has to emerge "
32. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Carona Ltd. vs. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons AIR 2006 SC 1[SECTION]7 to cite that on the date of filing of suit the plaintiff no. 2/respondent had no cause of ac tion in her favour. A cause of action is a bundle of facts. The co plaintiff, Shri [ENTITY], has joined the suit stating that the suit property was purchased in his name though the consideration was paid by the respondent ([ENTITY], the plaintiff no. 2). This by itself gave a cause of action to the respondent to file and maintain the suit as the statement of the coplaintiff created a right in her favour. Thus the law cited by the appellant being on different facts does not cut any ice in favour of the appellant. Thus the objection of the appellant as to the locusstandi of the respondent also fades into insignificance.
33. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand (RFA no. 3[SECTION][SECTION]/2000 decided on 9th April 2012 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) to cite that a right to possession of an immovable property arises not only from a complete ownership right in the property but having a better title or better entitlement.
34. I am in full agreement on the aspect that the scope of inquiry in the present suit has not been the question of absolute title of the appel lant. In fact, the appellant had to prove that she had a better title than the respondent to remain in the possession of the suit property. In fact the judgment of [PRECEDENT] 1[SECTION]3 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) does not create any fetters as far as the right of the appellant are concerned. The judgment specifically states that it is prospective and past transactions are not per se void or illegal. The documents like GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. may by themselves may not confer any absolute title on a party but visavis some other persons (who may challange the claim of the said person and stake their own claim) these may confer a better title. At this stage the documents may assume relevance on the plane of doctrine of pre ponderance of probabilities. Thus the claim of a person cannot alto gether be ignored merely because he has no absolute title. The rival claims have to be weighed and the better claim is to be upheld.
3[SECTION]. The respondent has based her claim on the basis of the being the real owner and payment of consideration by her, though the prop erty was purchased in the name of the coplaintiff. As the plaintiff no. 1, Shri [ENTITY] died during the pendency of the suit she also pro pounded his Will Ex. PW1/1. The said Will has been proved by the at testing witness Shri [ENTITY] as PW1 and by PW[SECTION] as well. The Will in favour of the respondent has been duly proved by the attesting witness. The appellant could not impugn the testimony of the attesting witness. In fact, by way of an application under [SECTION] [ACT] the appellant sought to bring on record a registered Will dated 12.09.19[SECTION]0 of Shri [ENTITY]. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 2[SECTION].07.2012 for the reasons stated therein. The appel lant also failed to substantiate through any evidence about Shri [ENTITY] suffering with paralysis as evidence on this aspect is conspicu ous by absence.
36. The appellant has taken an exception to the fact that the prop erty which was sold by the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 4000/ was way back and the suit property was purchased sub sequently and it cannot be presumed that the money was lying with the respondent for such a long time. I do not subscribe to the argu ment of the appellant firstly for the reason that no question on this as pect was put to the respondent when she appeared as a witness as PW3. Without bringing this fact in evidence, the appellant cannot ar gue this plea in abstract. If this plea is considered it would amount to failure of justice as the respondent was not given an opportunity to ex plain this fact. Secondly the factual matrix does not justify any such inference. The transaction of purchase is of the year 1966. The suit was filed in 19[SECTION]6 and the transaction of sale of agricultural land is stated to be 23 years back by the respondent, so it dates back to the year 1963. Thus a gap of three years is not a long period considered in the backdrop of the fact that during the contemporary period the bank ing in India was still in a state of infancy and banking habits were not so profound. During the contemporary period keeping money in the form of cash or gold was the common mode as no other avenues of in vestment was readily available. The plea cannot be considered in obli vion of the period to which it refers to. Thus on both the counts the plea of the appellant has no force.
37. The appellant has failed to prove on record the due execution of the documents Ex. DW1/A to Ex. DW1/D for a valuable considera tion in accordance with law. Though the Ld. Trial Court did not be lieve the title of appellant on the basis of there being no sale deed and it did not treat the documents like GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Affidavit etc. as akin to sale notwithstanding the same the erroneous reasoning or lack of reasoning can be corrected by the Appellate Court. Even otherwise the appellant has failed to establish the due ex ecution of those documents in accordance with law. As such the find ing given by the Ld. Trial Court is in the correct perspective.
3[SECTION]. On the preponderance of probabilities and in view of the evid ence led considered in totality the version of the respondent is at a higher pedestal than that of the appellant. The findings given on vari ous issues by the Ld. Trial Court does not require interference.
39. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
40. Decree shall be drawn accordingly.
41. TCR be sent back with a copy of the judgement and decree.
42. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the Open Court on this 20th day of May 2013 ([ENTITY]) ADJ01 (Central), Delhi