CS(OS) 2072/2006 Page 1 of 6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 19.01.2010 % Judgment Delivered on: 20.01.2010 + CS(OS)2072/2006 PHOOL KANWAR ………..Plaintiff Through: Mr.Prasoon Kumar & Mr. Ravi Chaudhary, Advts. for the plaintiff. Versus ASHOK NAIN & ORS. ……….Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the (i) Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA), Will, receipt and affidavit dated 18.10.2004, (ii) Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, receipt, affidavit and possession letter dated 4.11.2004 and (iii) Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, receipt, affidavit and possession letter dated 17.11.2004 be declared null and void. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: CS(OS) 2072/2006 Page 2 of 6 (i) Plaintiff is the absolute owner and Bhoomidar of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.36/4 (5-2), 7(3- 17), 8(4-12), 9(4-16), 12(3-12), 13 (4-12), 14 (3-8), 17 (3-16) and 9/12(4-16), 13(4-16), 19/1 (2-00) and 24/4/5(1-03) total land measuring about 46 Bighas, 10 Biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jat Khore, Delhi. The plaintiff had inherited this property as an ancestral property. (ii) Defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 are the neighbours of the plaintiff. Defendant no.3 is the mother of the plaintiff. (iii) Defendant no.1 and 2 in order to grab the property of the plaintiff convinced defendant no.3 that she would become the owner of 9 acres of land which had belonged to her deceased husband. At the behest of defendant no.1 and 2, defendant no.3 being a illiterate lady lured by their illegal advances conceded to thumb impression certain documents for the said purpose which, in fact, were GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will and affidavit dated 18.10.2004 purporting to show this transaction had been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.3. The name of the plaintiff had been mentioned at the place of the thumb impression put by defendant no.3. The GPA was registered on CS(OS) 2072/2006 Page 3 of 6 1.11.2004 and the other documents i.e. Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will and receipt were notarized on 29.10.2004. (iv) Defendant no.1 and 2 on the basis of these forged and fabricated documents again got another set of documents prepared from defendant no.3 i.e. Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, receipt, affidavit and possession letter dated 4.11.2004 alluring defendant no.3 with the impression that by thumb marking these documents her name would be entered in the relevant revenue records. These documents are dated 4.11.2004. They were, in fact, sale documents devolving the rights in the said property in favour of defendant no.2 by defendant no.3. (v) Further on 17.11.2004 an Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, affidavit and receipt were executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 making him the owner of this property. These documents were signed and attested by the same persons who were party to the execution of the forged and fabricated documents dated 4.11.2004. (vi) Relations of defendant no.3 were estranged with the plaintiff because of the strain that defendant no.3 had with the wife of the plaintiff. Plaintiff partially learnt CS(OS) 2072/2006 Page 4 of 6 about this fraud from his mother only after these documents had been executed. Further defendant no.3 was under the belief that these documents so executed by her would have transferred some share of the property belonging to her husband in her favour. (vii) Defendant no.1 and 2 filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction to obtain a stamp of the court of law to cover up their misdeeds and to make them legal; defendant no.2 and 3 and the plaintiff were also arrayed as parties. It was only on the receipt of the summons from the said court that the plaintiff came to know about the fraud and forgery committed by the defendants. (viii) Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the defendants which was registered as FIR no.5/2005 under Section 420/467/468/471/34 of the IPC against the said defendants. 3. Plaintiff has accordingly prayed that the aforesaid documents i.e. the documents dated 18.10.2004 and the subsequent documents dated 4.11.2004 and 17.11.2004 whereby the ownership of this disputed property allegedly stood transferred from the plaintiff to defendant no.3, thereupon to defendant no.2 and then to defendant no.1 all documents being forged and fabricated be declared null and void. CS(OS) 2072/2006 Page 5 of 6 4. Defendants had been served and Mr.Sumit Chaudhury, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of defendant no.1 and 2 as also for defendant no.3. In spite of opportunity having been granted to file written statement, the same was not filed. On 18.7.2008, opportunity to file written statement stood closed. None was appearing for the defendants. Matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff which he had filed by way of affidavit. 5. Plaintiff Phool Kunwar had appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and his ex-parte evidence was recorded. He has reiterated all the averments made on oath in court and has proved the relevant documents. The ownership of the disputed property i.e. Khatoni Consolidation and Khasra Girdawari along with true English translation is Ex.PW-1/A. GPA, Agreement to Sell and receipt dated 18.10.2004 i.e. the purported transaction between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 is Ex.PW-1/B. The copies of the Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, receipt, affidavit and possession letter dated 4.11.2004, the purported sale document devolving the rights in the property in favour of defendant no.2 are Ex.PW-1/C. The copies of the Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, receipt and affidavit dated 17.11.2004 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 purportedly making him the owner of the property are Ex.PW-1/D. Copy of the civil suit filed by defendant no.1 has been proved as Ex.PW-1/E. The copy of the FIR initiated on the complaint of the plaintiff has been proved as Ex.PW1/F. CS(OS) 2072/2006 Page 6 of 6 6. There is no opposition to the prayers made in the present plaint. The suit has been properly valued for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is within limitation. There is no impediment legal or otherwise in the grant of the prayers sought for by the plaintiff. He is entitled to the relief claimed by him. 7. Accordingly, (i) Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, receipt and affidavit dated 18.10.2004, (ii) Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, receipt, affidavit and possession letter dated 4.11.2004 and (iii) Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will, receipt, affidavit and possession letter dated 17.11.2004 are declared null and void. No orders as to costs. Decree shall be drawn. File be consigned to record room. (INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE JANUARY 20, 2010. rb