$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 12 + CM (M) 291/2010 & CM APPL 4016/2010 RAM BHARAN Petitioner Through Mr. Nitesh Sawhney, Advocate versus MS SINGH & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Anil Kumar Jangra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER % 26.04.2010 1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 30^*' November 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Civil Judge (East) ['SCJ'] rejecting the objections raised by the Petitioner under Sections 9 and 21 read with Section 47 CPC filed in Execution No. 973 of 2006 for recalling of the judgment and decree dated 13'^ December 2004. 2. Suit No. 122 of 2004 was filed by the Decree Holder ('DH') Shri M.S. Singh against the Judgment Debtor ('JD') Shri Ashok Singh for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for possession of the property measuring 50 sq.yards out of Khasra No. 10/13/14 bearing No. 510, Gali No. 10, situated at Village Karawal Nagar, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Shahdara, Delhi ('suit property'). The suit was decreed on 13'^ December 2004. The JD filed the above application raising objections on 3'^'^ July 2008 at the stage of execution. He claimed to have purchased the suit property from Shri Om Prakash, CM (Main) No. 291/2010 Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified &> Respondent No.4 herein. He claimed that Respondent No. 4 had purchased the property from Sulekh Chand who had in turn purchased the property from Shri Asha Ram. Shri Asha Ram had purchased the property from Ms.Birma Devi wife of the JD Shri Ashok Kumar on 17^'' March 2003. According to the Objector, he was in possession of documents which established the chain of transactions under which he was claiming title. These included the documents of cancellation of general power of attorney executed by the JD Shri Ashok Kumar in favour of the DH Shri M.S. Singh. 3. It was contended that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such suit as the suit property was covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Nilima Gupta V. Yogesh Saroha 2009 (156) DLT 129 the learned SCJ negatived the objection on the basis of jurisdiction since the suit property was used for residential purposes and not for agricultural purposes. 4. The second objection raised was that the decree was a nullity because the Petitioner was the real owner of the suit property. This objection was negatived by the learned SCJ by observing that the documents under which the Petitioner was claiming title to the suit property were unregistered and under-stamped and could not be received in evidence, in view of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Section 49 of the Registration Act. CM (Main) No. 291/2010 Page 2 of 3 g) 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is inconceivable that the Petitioner is seeking to defeat a decree of specific performance and possession at the stage of execution in respect of the immovable property by relying on unregistered and under-stamped documents. Considering that the suit property is an immovable one, there is no question of the Petitioner being permitted to object to the execution of the decree in question on the basis of such unstamped documents, that are merely attested. 7. No error can be found with the impugned order of the learned SCJ (East). The petition and the pending application are dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. APRIL 26, 2010 rk CM (Main) No. 291/2010 Page 3 of 3