1. Vide this Judgment, I shall dispose of two connected Suits i.e. CS DJ No. 8380/2016 titled 'Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors.' and CS DJ No. 8379/2016 titled 'Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini'. The suit titled 'Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini' was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi being CS (OS) No. 1604/2011. The suit titled 'Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors.' was filed in the District Court. Vide order dated 31.07.2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in I.A. No. 12431/2012 in CS (OS) No. 1604/2011, the said case was directed to be transferred to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. After transfer, the said case was given CS (OS) No. 3102/2012. Vide order dated 27.11.2013, both the suits were directed to be consolidated and the suit titled 'Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. ' was directed to be the lead suit. Therefore, the suit titled 'Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors.' CS CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 4 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) DJ 8380/2016 shall be considered as lead suit. FACTS OF CS DJ 8380/2016 ( Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors .)

2. The suit bearing CS DJ 8380/2016 was originally filed by Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini, before the Ld. ARC­cum­ACJ. Ld. ARC­cum­ACJ returned the plaint to the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 CPC vide order dated 29.04.2010. Thereafter, the suit was filed in the Court of Ld. District Judge. The plaintiff filed the said suit originally against Mohd. Yusuf (defendant No.1) and Sub­Registrar Mehrauli, New Delhi (defendant No.2). Defendant no. 3 and 4 were impleaded later on after an application filed by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 CPC was allowed by the Court. Even after impleadment of defendant no. 3 and 4, the plaintiff did not amend the plaint. Brief facts of the case, as per the plaint, are as under:­ 2.1. The plaintiff was the owner of the premises No. 147­A and 148, comprising in the area of about 120 sq. yards and 85 square yards respectively, in Village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The said property was inherited by the plaintiff from his father. Subsequently, he CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 5 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) got exchanged property No. 140, inherited from his deceased father, with the family of Sh. Sultan Singh and got the sale deed of property No. 148 registered in his name in lieu of property No. 140. The property No. 148, Khirki Village was assessed to House Tax in the name of Late Sultan Singh. The property bearing No. 147­A is the adjoining property of house No. 148, Khirki Village, New Delhi. The plaintiff raised the construction while joining both the said plots of lands i.e. 147­A and 148, Village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, in the year 1996­ 1997, after razing the old constructions. 2.2. There was one shop having area of 20 feet x 20 feet in the property no. 148 in old construction in the name and style of "Priya General Store", which was not razed / demolished and the shop remained as it was even after the new construction. The said shop was transferred to the proprietor of the said shop and the plaintiff was only having right, title and interest over the roof of the said shop.

2.3. Sh. Ved Prakash, who is a distant relative of the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 6 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) plaintiff, used to visit the plaintiff and his family. He won over the faith of the plaintiff and started interfering in the family matters like an elder son. He was having evil eyes on the properties of the plaintiff.

2.4. Mr. Ved Prakash in collusion with Sh. M.P. Singh, who is also a relative of Ved Prakash, started extorting money from the plaintiff by misrepresentation and illegal means. Sh. Ved Prakash, being the Vice President of the Saini Co­Operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, and Mr. M.P. Singh, being the member of the same, had lured the plaintiff to get sanctioned the loan from the said Society. They took the signatures of the plaintiff and his other family members on unfilled application forms and on blank papers and took the blank signed cheque without date and other particulars. Later on, it was disclosed by them that the loan had not been sanctioned but they themselves had misappropriated the amount by using the blank signed cheques. The plaintiff and his family members were not aware regarding any loan sanctioned in their names because they had not received any amount.

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 7 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) After receiving the notice from the aforementioned Society, it was revealed that the loan was sanctioned and misappropriated by those persons. A complaint in this regard was made but to no result. The Society initiated procedure for recovery of the loan amount. An Award was passed against the plaintiff and his family members which was challenged by way of an appeal. The proceedings were pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at the time of filing of the suit.

2.5. The plaintiff also made a complaint to the police in relation to the aforesaid incident and on 19.02.2005 an FIR bearing No. 152/2005 in PS Malviya Nagar Under Section 420/467/468/471/ 120 ­B IPC was registered. 2.6. The plaintiff was in need of some money, which was known to Sh. Ved Prakash and Sh. M.P. Singh. Therefore, they again played fraud upon the plaintiff and took him to the office of defendant No.2, i.e. the Office of Sub­Registrar under the pretext that the loan documents were to be prepared before the Sub­Registrar and that he had to sign those documents. They obtained his signatures CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 8 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) on document without telling the contents of the said document and thereby got a deed registered on 05.09.2002. They had also brought one Sh. Jai Narain with them who also put signature on the said document. The plaintiff was not told regarding the nature of the said document.

2.7. After some time, Sh. Ved Prakash along with one person came at the premises No. 148­147A, Khirki Village, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') and told the plaintiff that the plaintiff was required to appear before the Court and he had to receive the summons, as he had applied for loan. Therefore, on the advice of Mr. Ved Prakash, the plaintiff received the summons. Sh. Ved Prakash and Sh. Mohar Pal Singh (M.P. Singh) took the plaintiff to the Court where they took him to one Advocate Sh. D.S. Sharma, Chamber No. 75, Western Wing, Tis Hazari, Delhi. That Advocate was not engaged by the plaintiff nor he was instructed by the plaintiff to do anything. He simply asked the plaintiff to put his signatures on some typed documents. Mr. Ved CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 9 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Prakash and Mr. M.P. Singh induced the plaintiff to put his signature on those typed papers stating that whatever was written on those documents was in his interest. Those papers were left in the Chamber of the Advocate and he was taken to the Court of Ld. Civil Judge where the plaintiff was made to make statement at the instance of the said persons and the Advocate. The plaintiff had refused to make such statement, however, Mr. Ved Prakash and Mr. M.P. Singh pacified him saying that all those proceedings were eye wash as the possession would always remain with the plaintiff. Under such influence, deception and fraud, the plaintiff was made to make a statement before the Ld. Civil Judge, Sh. S.S. Malhotra, on 29.04.2003. The said statement was not voluntary. The statement is reproduced here under:

2.8. After recording of the said statement Mr. Ved Prakash, Mr. M.P. Saini, Advocate Mr. Iqbal Ahmed and Advocate Mr. D.S. Sharma told him that there was no CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 10 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) necessity to come again as the matter was disposed of. The suit was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2003 by the Court.

2.9. The plaintiff received a notice issued by the Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi, along with other notices in the names of other family members and only then it came to knowledge that the defendant No.1 in collusion with Ved Prakash and M.P. Singh played fraud and by misrepresentation got executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. In this regard complaint was made to the defendant No.2 as well as to the DCP on 11.08.2003. Despite that defendant No.2 had not taken any step on the said complaint. Rather the defendant No.2 facilitated the defendant No.1 to get a valid document by making payment of the required stamp duty. At the initial stage the value of the property was shown to be Rs.2,10,000/­ and on the said amount, stamp duty of Rs.27,300/­ was paid. However, subsequently after 05.02.2002 the defendant No.2 again took the stamp duty of Rs.50,000/­ from the defendant No.1 without any notice or intimation CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 11 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) to the plaintiff. It shows that defendant No.1, defendant No.2, Mr. Ved Prakash and Mr. M.P. Singh were acting jointly with common object. Whenever the defendant No.1 or Ved Prakash or M.P. Singh came to plaintiff they brought sweets and whenever they accompanied him to defendant No.2 or to the Court, they gave sweets to eat. 2.10. On 04.08.2003 Mr. Ved Prakash forcibly tried to put some luggage in property No. 147A­148, Khirki Village, New Delhi. Therefore, report was made to the PCR. Police officials reached at the spot. Ultimately, Ved Prakash tendered his apology in presence of respectable persons of locality to the effect that he had no concern with the suit property, and gave a written settlement to the police. The persons of the locality also gave in writing that the plaintiff was in continuous possession of the suit property and that neither Ved Prakash Saini nor Mohd. Yusuf were in possession of the suit property ever. The plaintiff also had a conversation recorded between one Sh. Matroo and the defendant No.1 wherein in the month of October, 2003 defendant No.1 categorically admitted that CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 12 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) for last more than one year the plaintiff was lingering on by taking time to handover the possession to the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 himself admitted that he was not in possession of the suit property at any point of time. 2.11. The impugned sale deed is a false and sham document. The area of property No. 148 has been shown as 198 square yards whereas the area of the property No. 148 is only 120 square yards. According to the location in the north side, the property No. 147 has been shown whereas it is 147A. There is nothing in the sale deed to suggest as to how much construction exists on the property No. 148, whereas in the suit filed by the defendant No.1, he has disclosed the extent of the construction. Non disclosure of the extent of construction in the sale deed by the defendant No. 1 or not observing the extent of construction by the defendant No.2 before handing over the registered document to the defendant No.1 seriously caste doubt regarding the collusion of the defendant No.1 in execution of the sale deed by misrepresentation of the facts and by playing fraud at the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 13 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) instance and active connivance of Ved Prakash and Mohar Pal Singh.

2.12. In the year 2001, the plaintiff got the valuation certificate of the property No. 147­A­148, which comes to Rs.77,58,500/­. Thus the value of the suit property was more than Rs. 71,00,000/­ in the year 2002 and therefore, the plaintiff could not have agreed to sell his property for Rs. 2,10,000/­.

2.13. In para No. 1, page 3 of the sale deed, the mode of payment has been suggested. However, the plaintiff did not receive even a single penny and there is no agreement or receipt to suggest that prior to execution of the alleged sale deed, such transaction had taken place. The alleged DD No. 007018 dated 29.08.2002 was stated to be paid to the plaintiff but the said amount or DD was not given to the plaintiff rather it was learnt that it was Ved Prakash who got the said DD deposited in the account of the plaintiff on 03.09.2002 by filing the deposit slip in his own handwriting and then withdrawing a sum of Rs.1,41,000/­ by way of three withdrawals dated CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 14 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) 06.09.2002 vide cheque No. 430507 and cheque No. 430509 for the sum of Rs.50,000/­ and Rs.70,000/­ respectively and on 12.02.2002 in the name of M.P. Singh vide cheque No. 43510 for the sum of Rs.21,000/­. These cheques were obtained by Ved Prakash fraudulently from the plaintiff. Another transaction by way of cheque No. 505822 dated 31.08.2002 has been allegedly given to the plaintiff as a sale consideration for the value of Rs.40,000/­ but the said cheque did not find mention in the statement of account of the plaintiff. The same is bogus and sham.

2.14. In para No. 2, page No. 4 of the impugned Sale Deed, it has been asserted that actual physical vacant possession of the said property was delivered by the Vendor to the Vendee on the spot. However, the suit property was never vacated by the plaintiff nor the possession was ever handed over to defendant No.1. The passport of the son of the plaintiff which was got issued on 10.12.2002 contains the address of the suit property. 2.15. The defendant No.1 had filed the suit for Permanent CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 15 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Injunction on 25.04.2003, whereas the Casualty Card of the plaintiff dated 21.07.2003 suggests that the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit property. Further, the letter received at the address for interview of plaintiff's son as well as telephone bills and other documents suggest that plaintiff and his family members were in continuous possession of the suit property. Since the execution of the alleged sale deed, the defendant No.1 has neither taken any steps to get the said property assessed in the house tax records in his name nor got the electric and water meters transferred in his name.

2.16. The sons of the plaintiff, namely Vikram and Gaurav Saini, have also filed a suit for partition in regard to the property in question, on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by their deceased grand­father. The defendant No.1 has also been impleaded as a party in the said suit on the basis of an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC . 2.17. Defendant No.1 in collusion with Ved Prakash and M.P.Singh had played fraud with the plaintiff to grab the suit property. The claim of the defendant No.1 is based on CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 16 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) false, fabricated and manipulated document and that too without obtaining any possession from the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has been filed seeking the following prayers :

3. Mohd. Yusuf, the defendant No.1, appeared on summons and filed his written statement along with an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing of the written statement. The said application was allowed vide order dated 14.02.2011. The defendant No.1 in the written statement has stated as under:

The defendant No.1 had purchased the said property from the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 05.09.2002 duly CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 18 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) registered with the office of Sub­Registrar vide document No. 10641, Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 2997, Pages 182 to 188. Physical possession of the entire property was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1. The said fact is also mentioned on page 4 of the sale deed.

3.4. Later on, the plaintiff turned dishonest and greedy. He along with some other persons tried to dispossess the defendant from the suit property. However, the plaintiff could not achieve his goal. In order to protect his legal rights, the defendant No.1 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff herein in the Court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge. The case was assigned to the Court of Sh. S.S. Malhotra, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi. The plaintiff herein was defendant in the said suit and he was served with the summons. He filed his written statement admitting the possession of the defendant No.1. On 29.04.2003 he also made a statement in the Court on oath, which was recorded. The Civil Suit was disposed of by Ld. Civil Judge vide order dated 12.05.2003. Parties were CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 19 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) directed to be bound by their statements made in the Court.

3.5. On 04.08.2003, when the defendant No.1 visited the suit property, he came to know that the plaintiff along with his family members had taken the forcible physical possession of the suit property. Therefore, the defendant No.1 approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing CCP No. 501/2003. The said petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.09.2003, giving liberty to the defendant No.1 herein to approach the Civil Judge concerned. Therefore defendant No.1 initiated the contempt proceedings against the plaintiff herein and his family members before the Ld. Civil Judge by filing petition bearing number M­89/2003. Ld. Civil Judge vide order dated 16.02.2004 made a reference to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under the Contempt of Court Act .

3.6. Vide order dated 20.07.2009 Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini, the plaintiff herein, was held to be contemnor and he was awarded punishment of simple imprisonment for CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 20 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) four months. Against the said order, the plaintiff herein filed a criminal appeal bearing No. 1798/2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

3.7. During the contempt proceedings the plaintiff, in order to put veils over the wrongs committed by him and his family members, got filed a false suit through his son Vikram against Harjeet Singh and others. The plaintiff herein was the defendant No.3 in the said suit. In the said Civil Suit the suit property was also involved. After coming to know about the said suit, the defendant moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and he was impleaded as defendant No.4. Later on Sh. Vikram i.e. the plaintiff in the said suit had withdrawn the Civil Suit on 23.04.2007.

3.8. The allegations made by the plaintiff against Mr. Ved Prakash and Mr. M.P. Singh have no concern with the defendant or the suit property. The plaintiff did not make any complaint against the lawyer. He had made the statement voluntarily and with free will. He had signed the sale deed also voluntarily with free will. The defendant CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 21 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) had paid Rs. 30,000/­ in cash, Rs. 1,40,000/­ through bank draft and Rs. 40,000/­ through cheque which were duly encashed. Before registration of sale deed, a 'no objection certificate' from the Office of Additional District Magistrate (L.A.) dated 07.08.2002 was also taken. The plaintiff had taken active part in preparation of the said document and he signed it. The said fact is also mentioned in the sale deed.

3.9. The plaintiff is a chronic litigant and he is in the habit of filing false and frivolous complaints. The plaintiff had made the statement voluntarily in open Court in the said Civil Suit in front of the Presiding Judge. False allegations have been made by the plaintiff in the present suit as the plaintiff has become dishonest. There are no merits in the present suit. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant No.1. He had denied the allegations made by the defendant No.1 and reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. It is also stated in the replication that "no objection certificate" was CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 22 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) also part of the series of fraud committed by the defendants.

5. The suit was pending before the Ld. Additional District Judge. In the meantime vide order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in IA No. 12431/2012 in CS No. 1604/2011, the present case was transferred to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and it was given CS (OS) No. 3102/2012. Vide order dated 27.11.2013 passed in CS (OS) No. 1604/2011 both the matters were consolidated. The present suit was directed to be the lead suit.

6. The plaintiff also moved an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead Mr. Ved Prakash Saini and Mr. Manohar Pal Singh as defendant no. 3 and 4 in this suit. The said application was dismissed on 07.11.2014. The plaintiff preferred an FAO (OS) 38/2015 against the said order. The Division Bench in the said FAO (OS) remitted the matter back to the Court to decide the application afresh. In the meantime, both the suits were transferred to the District Court in view of the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge vide notification no. 27187/THC/Orgl. Dated 24.11.2015. The application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was allowed vide order CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 23 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) dated 10.07.2017 by Ld. Predecessor on the basis of no objection given by the proposed defendants. They were impleaded as defendant no. 3 and 4 in the present suit. The plaintiff did not amend the plaint. Therefore, defendant no. 3 and 4 filed their written statements separately to the original plaint. Defendant No. 3 in the written statement stated that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and had concealed material facts from this Court. The plaintiff after selling premises constructed on plot no. 147­A & 148, situated within Village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi to a third person for valuable consideration has made vague and false allegations in order to retain wrongful possession of the suit property. The defendant has further stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is highly belated as the defendant no. 3 have been impleaded after 10 years of filing of the suit. No cause of action arisen out of the suit against the defendant no. 3. The defendant no. 3 is neither necessary nor proper party. False allegations have been made in the plaint. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

7. Defendant no. 4 in his written statement has also taken CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 24 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) similar grounds as taken by the defendant no. 3 in his Written Statement. He has also prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

8. The plaintiff filed separate replications to the WS of the defendant no.3 & 4. He has denied the allegations and reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. FACTS OF CS DJ 8379/2016 (Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini)

9. Mohd. Yusuf is the plaintiff in CS DJ 8379/2016 and defendant no. 1 in CS DJ 8380/2016. This suit was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for recovery of possession, mesne profits and injunction against Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini, the defendant as CS (OS) No. 1604/2011. Mr. Mohd. Yusuf in his plaint has stated as under:­ 9.1. The plaintiff had purchased a property bearing House No. 148, land measuring 198 sq.yds., comprising of Khasra No. 78, situated in Village Khirki, Tehsil Mehrauli, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The plaintiff had purchased the suit property consisting of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 25 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) basement consists of one hall and toilet bathroom, ground floor and the first floor each have two bedrooms, one drawing room, kitchen, toilet and bathroom, while on the second floor there is one room, kitchen, toilet and bathroom. The property was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 05.09.2002 from the defendant. The property is shown in the red colour in the site plan. 9.2. The defendant had assured and undertaken that he was the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property. Prior to registration of sale deed dated 05.09.2022, the defendant (vendor) and the plaintiff (vendee) obtained "No Objection Certificate" bearing no. 2943 dated 07.08.2002 from the Office of Tehsildar, Notification Branch, Tis Hazari, Delhi in view of Section 8 of Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 which is mandatory to be obtained before any transfer of agricultural land is registered.

9.3. The possession of the suit property was given to the plaintiff and he kept his household articles in the suit property contemporaneously and simultaneously with the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 26 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) execution and registration of sale deed dated 05.09.2002. 9.4. On 24.04.2003, the defendant along with 5 - 6 unknown persons came to the suit property and started throwing the goods and articles. They threatened to take forcible possession of the suit property. The plaintiff resisted the said attempt and made hue and cry. Several neighbours gathered at the spot. The plaintiff had shown the sale deed to them. With the intervention of the respectable members of the locality, the defendant and his associates could not succeed in their attempt to take forcible possession of the suit property. However, the defendant extended threat that he would take the forcible possession at any cost and would come again within 2 - 3 days. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit no. 106/2003 before Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi for permanent injunction against the defendant, his associates, attorneys, agents, servants etc. from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property.

9.5. Summons of the suit along with notice of the application under Order XXXIX CPC were issued in the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 27 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) said suit which was served on the same day on the defendant at House No. 106­A, Khirki Village, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi - 110017. The defendant appeared before the Ld. Civil Judge on 29.04.2003. He filed his written statement and also made a statement before the Court to the effect that he had already sold the suit property to the plaintiff vide sale deed and that he had neither threatened the plaintiff nor he would dispossess him. He also prayed for dismissal of the suit as there was no merit in the same. Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi also recorded the statement of the defendant. Thereafter, statement of the counsel for the plaintiff was also recorded who prayed for disposal of the suit in the light of the statement of the defendant. On 12.05.2003, the plaintiff also made a statement for disposal of the suit in terms of the statement of the defendant. Thereafter vide order dated 12.05.2003, the Court disposed of the suit directing the parties to be bound by their statements recorded in the Court. 9.6. The defendant and his entire family were aware of the sale deed dated 05.09.2002, the fact of possession CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 28 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) being given to the plaintiff and the order dated 29.04.2003 passed by Ld. Civil Judge in suit no. 106/2003. However, on 04.08.2003, the defendant along with his family members had broken open the locks and doors of the suit property and obtained unlawful possession of the same. The plaintiff informed the DCP, Turkman Gate, Delhi as well as Commissioner of Police, New Delhi via telegram dated 04.08.2003. The plaintiff made a representation to the DCP (Vigilance) Delhi on 07.08.2003. However, no steps were taken by the police.

9.7. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed CCP No. 501/2003 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2003 with directions to the plaintiff to approach the Civil Judge who would look into the matter and send his recommendations if contempt was made out. The plaintiff accordingly filed an application / petition being no. M­89/2003 dated 15.09.2003 before the Ld. Civil Judge under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC r/w Section 10 , 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the defendant as well as his wife and son.

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 29 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) 9.8. After the plaintiff had made a complaint to the police as mentioned hereinabove, one son of the defendant, namely, Shri. Vikram Saini filed suit no. 57/2003 before Ld. District Judge, Delhi on 11.08.2003 for partition and permanent injunction. In the said suit, one Sh. Harjeet Singh was made defendant no. 1, Mr. Gaurav Saini, another son of the defendant was defendant no. 2, and the defendant herein was defendant no. 3. Mr. Vikram Saini, the plaintiff in the said suit alleged that the property at 147­148 and 157 in Village Khirki, New Delhi belonged to his grandfather Late Sher Singh who died on 13.12.2000. He also stated that by virtue of Will, the said Sher Singh had given the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 the property at 147­148 and 157 in Village Khirki, Malviya Nagar along with the movable properties. He prayed for partition of the property at 147­148, Village Khirki Malviya Nagar and also sought an injunction against the defendants therein from raising any construction or transferring the property to any stranger. No relief was sought with respect to the alleged property bearing House CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 30 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) No. 157, Village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. 9.9. On 23.08.2003, all the three defendants in suit no. 57/03 appeared before Ld. Additional District Judge, Delhi and made statements that the property in dispute is the joint property of said parties. The defendant no. 3 i.e. the defendant herein had stated that they had collected the building material on site but they had not started any construction. Status quo order dated 23.08.2003 was passed by the Ld. ADJ, Delhi in the said suit. 9.10. The defendant herein had filed his written statement in the Civil Suit no. 57/03 as defendant no. 3. In the said written statement, he had stated that he was the absolute owner of the property and his sons i.e. Mr. Vikram and Gaurav were staying in the suit property be virtue of being his son. The defendant for the first time mentioned that one Sh. Ved Prakash had revealed to him on 04.08.2003 that the defendant herein had executed a sale deed dated 05.09.2002 in favour of the plaintiff herein with respect to the suit property. He did not deny the factum of the sale deed dated 05.09.2003, however, he stated that the same CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 31 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) was done due to misrepresentation by said Ved Prakash and the plaintiff herein. He would state that he was taken to the Office of Sub Registrar, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi on the pretext that he would be given loan and once the loan was sanctioned, he would have to accompany them to the Court. However, this entire story is false and concocted. 9.11. On 07.10.2003, the plaintiff of suit no. 57/03 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. They prayed for addition of prayer of declaration thereby declaring the sale deed dated 05.09.2002 as illegal. The plaintiff of the said suit also prayed that he and the defendant no. 2 therein be declared as real owners of the suit property. The defendant herein filed his amended written statement on 22.10.2003. In the written statement, he would state that he was lawful owner in possession of the suit property. He also stated that after filing the written statement dated 16.09.2003, he was served with notice in the Contempt Application being no. M­89/2003. He would state that he was misled by the plaintiff herein as well as one Sh. Ved Prakash in CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 32 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) executing the sale deed dated 05.09.2002 and in making statement dated 29.04.2003 before the Ld. Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 106/2003 under the belief that he would be sanctioned loan. He also attempted to give a new description of the property by saying that the property in question had been built on two plots viz. 147­A (85 sq.yds.) and 148 (120 sq.yds.) and therefore, the entire plot was 205 sq.yds. Mr. Vikram Saini, in his plaint has stated that the house had been built on two joint plots of land, i.e., 147 and 148.

9.12. Even after amendment of the plaint and seeking a decree for declaring the sale deed dated 05.09.2002 as illegal, the said plaintiff i.e. Mr. Vikram Saini did not implead the plaintiff herein as a party in the said suit. When the plaintiff herein came to know about the said suit, he filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment. The application was allowed and the plaintiff herein was impleaded as defendant no. 4 vide order dated 15.04.2004.

9.13. In the meantime, Ld. Civil Judge in M­89/2003 CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 33 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the suit property. Vide his report dated 22.09.2003, the Local Commissioner stated that he had found the defendant herein and his wife in possession of the suit property and some work was going on in the premises.

9.14. The defendant herein filed his reply dated 22.10.2003 in the Contempt Proceedings and narrated the same concocted story as stated in the WS in suit no. 57/2003. He accepted having executed the sale deed, filing of the written statement in suit no. 106/2003 and making of statement in suit no. 106/2003. His sole defence was that he was misled in doing all those things by the plaintiff and one Sh. Ved Prakash as mentioned hereinabove. Mr. Vikram Saini who was the respondent no. 3 in the said Contempt proceedings also filed his reply in which he disclosed about his filing of suit no. 57/03. 9.15. Vide order dated 16.02.2004, Ld. Civil Judge in M­ 89/03 had held that the defendant herein was guilty of contempt of Court and referred the matter to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for appropriate order against the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 34 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) defendant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 . 9.16. In the meantime, on 26.02.2005 the defendant herein had filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction being suit no. 28/05 before Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi for declaration that his statement dated 29.04.2003 as mentioned hereinabove and order dated 12.05.2003 in Suit No. 106/2003 were null and void as it was procured by misrepresentation of facts. Further prayer for declaring the sale deed dated 05.09.2002 as null and void was also made. The plaintiff herein as well as Sub Registrar, Mehrauli were made defendants in the said suit. At present, the said suit is pending before the Ld. Additional District Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi bearing no. 1045/10. (This fact is regarding CS DJ 8380/2016). 9.17. In the meantime, on a statement of plaintiff Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini of suit no. 57/03, Ld. ADJ, Delhi vide order dated 23.04.2007 dismissed the suit as withdrawn while recording the statement of the plaintiff that he had filed a Probate Petition before the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, he wanted to withdraw the suit without any CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 35 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) condition.

9.18. In the meantime, in the Contempt proceedings, the Hon'ble High Court after going through the order dated 16.02.2004 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi in M­ 89/2003 treated the same as Criminal Contempt and same was registered as Contempt Case (CRL) No. 09/2004 titled as "Court On Its Own Motion Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini ". The charges were framed and evidence was led by both the parties. The Hon'ble High Court vide order and judgment dated 20.07.2009 recorded a finding that the defendant herein was guilty of criminal contempt of the Court and awarded him a punishment of simple imprisonment for 4 months.

9.19. Thereafter, the plaintiff had also filed Criminal M.A. No. 11437/2009 in the Contempt Case before the Hon'ble High Court seeking directions to the defendant herein / contemnor to deliver the actual physical vacant possession of the suit property. The said application was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that if the plaintiff was aggrieved by insufficiency of the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 36 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) punishment awarded to the contemnor, his remedy lied somewhere else and not before the High Court. 9.20. In the meantime, the defendant herein filed Statutory Appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 1798/2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 20.07.2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court in the Crl. Contempt No. 09/2004. The plaintiff herein also filed an intervention application in the said Criminal Appeal. He also filed an SLP (Crl.) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.01.2011 dismissed the SLP with liberty to the plaintiff to avail other remedies.

9.21. The two sons of the defendant i.e. Mr. Vikram Saini and Mr. Gaurav Saini had filed a Probate Case No. 10/2007 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in which an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to the title, possession and construction of the property bearing no. 147­A, 148, Village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was passed. The plaintiff herein had also filed his CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 37 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) objections in the said Probate Case. In the meantime, one of the sons of the defendant, namely, Gaurav Saini who was petitioner no. 2 in the Probate Case had sold part of the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 17.09.2009. The plaintiff after coming to know about the said fact had filed CCP No. 79/2010 in the said Probate Case against Gaurav Saini. Said Gaurav Saini had mentioned two different facts qua his rights towards the suit property in Probate Case and in the sale deed executed by him.

9.22. The defendant is liable to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property. The defendant had unlawfully taken the possession of the suit property from the plaintiff. He has been enjoying the suit property without paying market rent as applicable to the user of the property. Therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits at least Rs. 30,000/­ per month being the tentative and minimum market rent of the suit property. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the mesne profits / damages. Hence, the present suit has been filed with the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 38 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) following prayers :

10,80,000/­ as per details given in the preceding paragraph of the plaint;

c) Pass a decree of Rs. 5,83,200.00 [@ 18% per annum or at such other rate as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court or arrears of mesne profits / damages of Rs. 10,80,000/­ referred to in the preceding sub­para of this prayer clause];

d) Pass a preliminary decree appointing a local commissioner to ascertain / determine the mesne profit / damages pendente lite for the property in suit;

e) Pass a decree for damages for illegal use and occupation of the property in suit in terms of the final report of the local commissioner or in the alternative, a decree for damages / mesne profits for use and occupation of the property in suit till the date of recovery of actual physical vacant possession thereof by the plaintiff @ Rs. 30,000/­ pm or at such higher rate as may be finally determined by this Hon'ble Court after hearing the parties;

f) Pass a decree for interest @ 18% per annum or at such higher rate as this Hon'ble Court may determine, pendente lite as well as for future, on the decretal amount as may be ascertained and decreed by this Hon'ble Court;

g) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction directing the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 39 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) defendant to clear all the statutory dues whether on account of electricity, water or any other dues by whatever nomenclature the same may be referred to, if any, found / determine payable to the authorities concerned for the period from 04.08.2003 i.e. (date on which the possession of the property in suit was illegally taken by the defendant till the date the actual physical vacant possession of the property in suit is handed over to the plaintiff.

h) Allow cost of these proceedings in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and / or

i) Pass any other / further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

10. As already mentioned, the suit bearing CS DJ 8379/2016 was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Vide order dated 05.07.2011, summons for settlement of issues were directed to be issued to the defendant. Ex­parte ad­interim injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiff thereby restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating, creating any third party interest or parting with possession of the suit property. Kanwar Singh Saini, the defendant, appeared and filed his Written Statement (WS) and the reply to the application. The defendant has contested the suit on the following grounds :

Bhim Singh. By way of oral understanding between those two brothers, the property was divided. Father of the defendant executed a General Power of Attorney dated 29.11.1979 in respect of 85 sq.yds. of plot no. 147 in favour of wife of the defendant. An agreement dated 29.11.1979 was entered into between the defendant and his father. An affidavit and Will dated 29.11.1979 was also executed by the father of the defendant in favour of the defendant with respect to 85 sq.yds. of plot no. 147. The part which belonged to the father of the defendant was designated later on as plot no. 147­A. Property No. 148 was originally sold by Sh. Mam Chand to Sh. Sultan by way of sale deed dated 22.06.1966. The area of the plot was about 1071 sq.ft. i.e. 120 sq.yds. After death of Sultan Singh, Smt. Raj Bala Saini, his widow had become the owner of the property. She had executed a GPA dated 26.09.1995 in favour of the wife of the defendant and Will dated 26.09.1995 in favour of the defendant along with an CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 41 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) indemnity bond of the same date. Thus, the wife of the defendant came to have title of the property bearing no.

148. His wife thereafter transferred the property bearing no. 148 to the defendant by way of registered sale deed. The consideration for the transfer of plot no. 148 to the defendant / his wife was that in lieu of the said plot, property bearing no. 140 was transferred to Smt. Raj Bala Saini. The mutual exchange was separately agreed to. In the property bearing no. 140, the father of the defendant had rights and the wife of the defendant later came to have rights over the same. Thus, the property bearing addresses 147­A and 148 are two different plots.

10.2. After demolishing the structures existing on property no. 147­A and 148, the defendant raised a common construction covering both plots. In the old construction in the property no. 148, there was one shop under the name of Priya General Store having area of 20 ft. x 20 ft. The said shop had been transferred to the proprietor of the said general store before the defendant had obtained the rights over the property from Sh. Sultan CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 42 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Singh. In respect of the said portions, the defendant had rights on the roof and above but not on the ground floor of the said shop.

10.3. One distant relative of the defendant, namely Mr. Ved Prakash Saini, had become familiar with the family of the defendant as he used to visit the defendant. He had won over the faith of the defendant. The defendant was in need of some funds. Mr. Ved Prakash Saini represented that he was Vice President of Saini Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. and he could arrange the funds for the defendant. Ved Prakash Saini in collusion with M.P. Singh and the plaintiff entered into a conspiracy to defraud the defendant. They assured the defendant that they would arrange the loan. At their instance, documents of property no. 148, Khirki Village were got signed from the defendant stating that they were necessary and required for sanctioning of the loan. The defendant only subsequently got to know that in fact they had got a sale deed executed from him. Mr. Ved Prakash and M.P. Singh in collusion with the plaintiff, without telling the contents CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 43 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) of the documents before the Sub Registrar got his signatures affixed on the documents. His presence before the Sub Registrar was secured by fraud and misrepresentation under the pretext of getting the documents prepared before the Office of Sub Registrar for the purpose of sanctioning of loan. They had represented that for sanctioning of the loan, the defendant was required to appear before the Court.

10.4. The procedure followed in suit no. 106/2003 was illegal and without the sanction of law. There was no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure or any other law under which the statement dated 29.04.2003 could have been recorded in the suit. The said suit was disposed of which is unrecognized in law. The proceedings in the said suit were a fraud played upon the defendant and also upon the Court by the plaintiff, Ved Prakash and M.P. Singh. The statement given by the defendant was not voluntary. The written statement in the said suit does not contain his signatures. The vakalatnama filed in the said suit does not contain the signature of the defendant. Though, he was CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 44 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) personally present in Court on 29.04.2003 and his statement was recorded, the signatures on the statement are not his signatures. Further, the defendant was given an impression that the proceedings had arisen on account of sanctioning of a loan and that his ownership was not being parted with or disputed. He never understood the true nature of the proceedings as a result of the misrepresentation made by the plaintiff, Ved Prakash and M.P. Singh.

10.5. On the pretext of obtaining a loan for the defendant, Mr. Ved Prakash Saini had taken signatures of the defendant on various documents. Without knowledge of the defendant, loan was sanctioned and funds were unauthorizedly withdrawn from the accounts of the family members of the defendant by using blank cheques which had been signed by the defendant and given to Ved Prakash Saini in good faith. In this regard, FIR No. 152/2005 dated 10.02.2005 was registered on a complaint of the defendant at PS Malviya Nagar in which chargesheet has already been filed against Ved Prakash CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 45 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Saini and Mohar Pal Singh @ M.P. Singh. The defendant have also made a complaint dated 23.02.2005 to the SHO, Malviya Nagar and a complaint dated 05.10.2011 to the Special Commissioner, Vigilance, Delhi Police Headquarters.

10.6. On 04.08.2003, Mr. Ved Prakash had come at the suit property along with certain household goods and 4 - 5 persons and started keeping the same in one of the room. The defendant protested the same and asked him to remove the said goods. On his refusal, police was called from PS Malviya Nagar. The police official reached at the spot and with great persuasion, goods of Ved Prakash were got removed. Apology was tendered by Ved Prakash in presence of respectable members of the locality. He had given in writing settlement to the police stating that he had no concern with the property no. 148. The persons of the locality also gave in writing that the defendant remained in continuous possession of the property which was built upon 147­A - 148 and also that neither Ved Prakash Saini nor Mohd. Yusuf were ever in possession of the said CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 46 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) property. Later on, it was revealed that in fact Ved Prakash had got the sale deed of property no. 148 registered in favour of Mohd. Yusuf and that he had come to take possession of the said property at his instance. The defendant thereafter, lodged a complaint on 11.08.2003 to the Sub Registrar as well as to the DCP concerned. This was the first time when the defendant actually came to know about the execution of the sale deed dated 05.09.2002.

10.7. There is a recorded conversation between Sh. Matru and the plaintiff in the month of October 2003 wherein the plaintiff categorically admitted that he was not in possession of the suit property at any point of time. 10.8. There are various errors in the sale deed. In the sale deed dated 05.09.2002 the location of the north side property has been shown as 147 whereas it is 147­A. At para 1 of page 3 of the sale deed, mode of the payment has been suggested. However, the defendant has not received even a single penny. No demand draft no. 007018 dated 29.08.2002 had been given to the defendant.

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 47 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Subsequently, the defendant came to know that Mr. Ved Prakash Saini had deposited the said demand draft in the account of the defendant on 03.09.2002 by filing the deposit slip in his own handwriting and thereafter, he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,41,000/­ by way of 3 withdrawals dated 06.09.2002 vide cheques numbers 430507 - 430509 for the sum of Rs. 50,000/­ and Rs. 70,000/­ respectively and on 12.09.2002 in the name of M.P. Singh vide cheque no. 430510 for sum of Rs. 21,000/­. Another transaction by way of cheque no. 505822 dated 31.08.2002 has been allegedly given to the defendant as a sale consideration for a value of Rs. 40,000/­. However, the said cheque does not find mention in the statement of account of the defendant. Since the date of alleged execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff has not taken any steps either to get the said property accessed in the house tax records in his name or get the electric and water meters transferred in his name. They are still in the name of the defendant and his family members. 10.9. The defendant never sold the suit property to the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 48 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) plaintiff. Plot No. 148 is 120 sq.yds. and not 198 sq.yds. as stated by the plaintiff. The defendant never handed over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff or to any other person and therefore no question of dispossession arises. The defendant and his family members have been in possession of the entire property which was commonly constructed on two plots i.e. plot No. 147A and 148 by the defendant in the year 1995. False story of dispossession has been made by the plaintiff to create a false cause of action. False allegations have been made in the plaint. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed. JOINT PROCEEDINGS OF BOTH THE CASES:

11. In the meantime, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had decided the Criminal Appeal No. 1778/2009 filed by the defendant herein against the judgment and order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal Contempt Case No. 9/2004. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 23.09.2011 had held that in view of the fact that the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2003 were passed by the Civil Court on the basis of the admission, CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 49 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) undertaking given by the defendant and the pleadings taken by him in his written statement, the appropriate remedy available to the plaintiff therein was to file an execution petition and that contempt petition was not maintainable in such circumstances.

12. On 27.11.2013, Hon'ble High Court had directed for consolidation of both the suits. It was also directed that CS (OS) No. 3102/2012 titled Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Mohd. Yusuf will be treated as lead suit.

JOINT ISSUES:

13. Vide order dated 07.05.2014, joint issues were settled in both the matters. Thereafter, intra court appeals were filed by Kanwar Singh Saini before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court which were registered as FAO (OS) 328/2014 and FAO 329/2014. Vide order dated 22.07.2014, Hon'ble High Court in those FAO (OS) 328/2014 and 329/2014 had directed for settlement of two more issues as issue no. 1A and 1B. One application under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini was allowed by the Court vide order dated 10.07.2017 and defendant no. 3 and 4 were directed to be impleaded as parties. After completion of pleadings by CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 50 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) defendant no. 3 and 4, two more issues were settled on 01.09.2017. Vide order dated 19.08.2023 the issues were renumbered. The issues in the present case read as under:

14. Vide order dated 20.01.2016, both the matters were transferred to District Court, Saket after increase in pecuniary jurisdiction. They were given CS DJ No. 8380/2016 and CS DJ No. 8379/2016 respectively.

JOINT EVIDENCE:

15. Kanwar Singh Saini (hereinafter referred as K.S. Saini) examined Sh. Deepak, Junior Judicial Assistant from the Court of Sh. Vivek Kumar, Ld. CMM (South) as PW1. PW1 brought the file of case FIR No. 152/05 from the Court of Sh. Vivek Kumar Gulia, the then Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi. He proved the document brought by him i.e. the original letter dated 10.05.2005 written by the Canara Bank to Delhi Police, account opening forms and account statements of Sh. Gaurav Saini, Vikram Saini, Kanwar Singh Saini and Mohar Pal Singh, letter dated 03.12.2004, Original Cheque bearing No. 430509, 430507, 430510, 393205, 552240, 430601 and original deposit slips, specimen and admitted hand writing of Sh. Ved Prakash Saini along with report of CFSL, member specimen signature card of Kanwar Singh, receipt dated 30.04.1990, membership form of Sh. Kanwar Singh Saini of Saini Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. FIR No. 152/2005, deposits slip of Canara Bank along with original of letter dated 09.05.2004 written by Canara Bank.

16. K.S. Saini further examined ASI Ved Prakash, P.S. CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 54 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Malviya Nagar, as PW2. He placed on record letter dated 28.11.2014 signed by SHO Malviya Nagar and submitted that record of complaints upto 31.12.2009 had been destroyed vide order No. 3801­75/HAR SD dated 27.06.2013. He brought following documents:

17. K.S. Saini further examined Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Sr. Judicial Assistant, Criminal Branch, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. He brought original record of the documents filed by the plaintiff at new page No. 23 to 34 (original page Nos. 47 to

18. K.S. Saini further examined Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Jr. Judicial Assistant, from the Court of Sh. A.K. Agarwal, Ld. Civil Judge (West) as PW4. He brought original records of the document filed by the plaintiff in this case at new page No. 1 to 24 of index dated 15.09.2014 i.e. Part - III Volume­I.

19. K.S. Saini further examined HC Naveen Kumar, PS Malviya Nagar as PW5. He placed on record letter dated 10.01.2018 signed by SHO, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi along CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 55 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) with the report dated 26.07.2017 signed by ACP/HQ/SD and stated that all General and Local, Timed, CMTS complaints/Registers/copies of replies etc. upto 31.12.2013 were destroyed by the orders of Senior Officers vide order No. 8715­8805/HAR/SD dated 26.07.2017. He relied upon the copy of order dated 26.07.2017 as Ex.PW5/1.

20. K.S. Saini further examined Sh. Usman Khan, Sales Officer, HDFC Bank, Saket Branch, as PW6. He placed on record letter dated 11.01.2018. He brought following documents:

account statement of account No. 00431000077639 bearing bank seal.

00431000077639 from 26.06.2001 to 04.10.2002:

21. K.S. Saini further examined Ms. Suman Sharma, officer from Canara Bank, Malviya Nagar, as PW7. She has brought following documents:­

a) Letter dated 11.01.2018 signed by Chief Manger with the seal of bank:Ex. PW7/1.

b) Account statement for account No. 20516 maintained by Gaurav Saini S/o Sh. K.S. Saini for the period 01.08.2001 to 30.11.2004: Ex.PW7/2.

c) Account statement of account NO. 22531 maintained by Vikram Saini for the period 01.01.2002 to 01.02.2008: Ex.PW7/3.

d) Letter dated 05.02.2018 with the seal of Bank :

22. K.S. Saini further examined Sh. Sunil Kumar, Data Entry Operator, from the office of SDM Hauz Khas, as PW8. He stated that there was no record in his office pertaining to complaint dated 11.08.2003 as there is no record of Saket Jurisdiction in the office upto the year 2012.

23. K.S. Saini further examined Sh. Nicholson Bernard, from the office of Su Registrar­V (Kalkaji) Mehrauli, as PW9. He placed on record a letter dated 12.01.2018 as Ex.PW9/1.

24. K.S. Saini further examined Sh. Mahinder Kaushik, stating to be his neighbour, as PW10. He would depose that when he heard the commotion on the particular day then he went to the spot. Police was there and more than 50 villagers were also present there. Some articles were lying in and outside the house of Sh. Kanwar Singh Saini. He asked the reason of the gathering of the people. Some reputed persons of Saini Society gathered at the first floor of Kanwar Singh' House. He also went there. They told him that matter had been settled between Kanwar Singh Saini and Ved Prakash Saini and the settlement was written on paper which was written by Ved Prakash Saini. After one month Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 58 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) came to him and he asked him to give a statement regarding what he had seen on 04.08.2003. He wrote the same on a paper and handover it to Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini. He exhibited the certified copy of the statement as Ex.PW10/1.

25. K.S. Saini further examined Sh. Sandeep Saini as PW11. He is also stated to be his neighbour He has deposed similar to PW10. He has relied upon copy of his statement which is Ex.PW11/1.

26. K.S. Saini further examined Sh. Anil Saini, another neighbour, as PW12. He has also deposed similar to PW10 and PW11. He has tendered certified copy of his statement which is Ex.PW12/1.

27. K.S. Saini examined himself as PW13. He tendered his evidence by way of three affidavits which are Ex.PW13/A, Ex. PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C. He has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. He relied upon following documents: ­

a) Copy of General Power of Attorney dated 29.11.1979:

PW5/41G in the affidavit of evidence)

q) Copy of receipt dated 29.11.1979 executed by Sh. Sher Singh: Ex.PW13/17 (OSR) (mentioned as Ex. PW5/43 in the affidavit of evidence)

r) Certified copy of cheques bearing No. 430509, 430507, 430510, 393205, 552240, 430601: Ex.PW13/18A to Ex.PW13/18F (mentioned as Ex. PW5/19A to Ex. PW5/19F in CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 61 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) the affidavit of evidence)

s) Certified copy of letter dated 10.05.2005 issued by Canara Bank, Malviya Nagar Branch: Ex.PW13/19 (mentioned as Ex. PW5/25 in the affidavit of evidence)

t) Certified copy of the report made by Forensic Science Lab, bearing No. CX 149/2006 along with the specimen signatures/handwriting, admitted handwriting/signatures :

PW13/35 (mentioned as Ex. PW5/15 in the affidavit of evidence).

hh) Complaint dated 11.08.2003 is Ex. PW13/36.

ii) Copy of AD Card and postal receipts is Ex. PW13/37.

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 63 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) jj) AD Card is Ex. PW13/38.

kk) UPC is Ex. PW13/39.

ll) Cheque deposit slip is Ex. PW13/40.

mm) Certified copy of Court record of the suit No. 106 of 2003 titled as Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini, disposed off by the Court of Sh. S.S. Malhotra, Civil Judge, on 12.05.2003:

Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini and Ors. Bearing No. M 89/2003 under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Sections 10 , 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is exhibited as Ex.PW13/42. oo) Certified copy of court record of the Contempt Case (Crl.) 9 of 2004 disposed by Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 20.07.2009: Ex.PW13/43.

pp) Certified copy of court record of the case FIR No. 152 of 2005, charge sheet dated 10.02.2005 disposed off by the Court of Sh. Vivek Kumar Guliyan, CMM South, Saket Court, New Delhi by order dated 18.03.2014, revision petition disposed off by the Court of Sh. Manoj Jain, Judge, CBI, Saket Court, New Delhi: Ex.PW13/44.

28. During tendering of the documents in evidence, the defendants had taken objection on their exhibition regarding mode of proof as the documents were not proved as per law.

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 64 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016)

29. K.S. Saini further examined Sh. Gaurav Saini, his son as PW14. He tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW14/A. He has stated in his affidavit that defendant no. 3 (Ved Prakash Saini) before 04.08.2003 had in good terms with the plaintiff and his family members. His father used to trust him a lot and sometimes even more than his own sons and daughters. At the instance of defendant no. 3, he became a member of the Saini Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. The documentation and formalities in respect of the same were completed by the defendant no. 3. He did not even accompany the defendant no. 3 to the office of Society for his membership as signatures on some forms, cheques and some blank papers, were obtained by the defendant no. 3 at his residence. Due to defendant no. 3 only, his account was opened in Canara Bank, Malviya Nagar Branch. At that time as well, certain documents were signed by him at the instance of defendant no. 3 by creating an impression that he was made to sign those documents for the purpose of opening bank account. It is further stated in the affidavit of the witness that it was a common practice in their society that, inter alia, the office bearers of the Saini CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 65 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. used to get relevant documents signed from the members of the society at the their residence for the purpose of depositing it in the office of society at Darya Ganj. Most of the members stayed at Khirki Village and to ease the process, members used to sign papers at their residence which were then deposited in the office of Society at Darya Ganj by any member of the office bearers. Most of the members of the Saini Society were related to each other, all being sainis. They used to give guarantee for loans applied by each other. It was a usual process to sign as guarantee on loan application forms for each other. Many a times, defendant no. 3 used to bring multiple blank and signed society forms to their house and used to get them filled from his sister. The reason told by defendant no. 3 to him for getting the forms filled by his sister was her good hand writing. On 04.08.2003 defendant No.3 at around 11:00AM alongwith some of his family members, came on the First Floor of his house i.e. 147A and 148, Khirki Village. His father was not keeping well and he alongwith his mother, was there. After sometime, his brother Vikram, came from office and he was CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 66 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) sent downstairs to get some food for him. When he came on the ground floor, he saw that some household furniture was lying on the ground floor which did not belong to them and was not there earlier. Some photo frames were also lying there which had photo of defendant No.3 in them. He went inside one of the rooms on the ground floor and saw that wife of defendant No.3 and another person were keeping more articles inside that room. Some kitchen articles had also been kept. On seeing this, he asked wife of defendant No.3 as to what was happening. She told him that this was what should be done with them. He ran upstairs and shouted that defendant No.3 was trying to illegally take possession of their house. He also quickly called their neighbours and came downstairs again to throw his stuff out of the house. He shouted downstairs and gathered many neighbours. In a short time the entire Saini Society had gathered. His uncle Sh. Rattan Saini had called the police also. Some articles of Ved Prakash including his furniture and photo frames had been thrown out in the street. On seeing the police and agitated crowd, defendant No.3 apologized to his father and in front of the police, he wrote a CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 67 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) settlement on behalf of his father, since his father wasn't well. The settlement is already on record and he can verify its contents and it was written in front of him. He further state that defendant No.3 had written the said settlement out of his own free will. Some of the neighbours had signed the settlement as witness. After this, the police went and the crowd also dispersed. Defendant No.3 again apologized to his father. His father asked him as to why did he do this, on which he told that he had got executed a Sale Deed from his father by misleading him, in front of Mohd. Yusuf and that he had come on his behalf to take the possession. He also reminded his father the day when he took his father to the office of Sub Registrar and had made his father sign various papers. The defendant no. 3 also reminded of the day when he had taken his father to Tis Hazari Court and had misled him into making a statement before the Court. It is further stated in the evidence affidavit of the witness that somewhere in the month of September 2003, he received a notice from Tis Hazari Court informing him to appear in some Court proceedings initiated by Mohd. Yusuf, which he later came to know were contempt proceedings CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 68 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) initiated against him and his family by Mohd. Yusuf. Somewhere in end of the year 2003 or beginning of year 2004, they received loan recovery notices from the Society. They came to know that some loan had been sanctioned by the society in their name which had remained unpaid. On making inquires from the bank, they came to know that fraud was played upon them by manipulating their bank entries. On checking the same, he came to know that in January 2002 an amount of Rs. 60,000/­ was deposited in his account and the same was withdrawn by way of cheque in the name of M.P. Singh which he did not know. It was later informed by his father that M.P. Singh was Mohar Pal Singh Saini, one of their neighbour. The witness further states that he did not know about the present case as the same has been filed by his father.

30. All the witnesses of K.S. Saini were cross examined by Ld. Counsel for Mohd. Yusuf, the defendant No.1 and Ld. Counsel for the defendants No. 3 & 4 in CS DJ No. 8380/2016.

31. In the meantime, Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini had expired. One application was moved under Order XXII Rule 3 in CS DJ 8380/2016 titled Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Mohd. Yusuf and CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 69 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Ors. to bring on record LRs of plaintiff. An application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC was filed in CS DJ 8379/2016 to bring LRs of the defendant on record. Both the applications were allowed vide order dated 29.10.2021 in both the matters. LRs of Kanwar Singh Saini were taken on record.

32. Mohd. Yusuf examined himself as D1W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. D1W1/A. He has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint / written statement. He has relied upon following documents:

33. D1W1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for K.S. Saini.

34. Mohd. Yusuf further examined Sh. Naresh Kumar Yadav as D1W2. The witness has been examined to prove mesne profits of the suit property. He would state that original lease agreement dated 28.09.2008 was executed between him and Ms. Deepti Jain. He has relied upon the following documents:­

a) Summons of the Court: Ex.D1W2/1.

b) Original lease agreement dated 28.09.2018 executed between D1W2 and Ms. Deepti Jain:

35. D1W2 would also depose that the property mentioned in the lease agreement is situated in proximity with the suit property bearing No. 147­148, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The property is on rent since 2014. In the year 2014, the rent of the property mentioned in the lease agreement Ex.D1W2/2 was about Rs.14,000/­ to Rs.15,000/­. At present the property fetches rent of Rs.17,000/­. He further deposed that although similar properties, in proximity with the property mentioned in the lease agreement, are fetching more rent than Rs. 17,000/­ at present.

36. Mohd. Yusuf further examined Sh. Satish Kumar Bhatia as D1W3. He deposed that Original valuation report of the suit property dated 28.10.2018 had been prepared by him which is exhibited as Ex.D1W3/1 (colly page 1 to 3). He had prepared the said report after visiting the suit property. The photocopy of certificate dated 03.08.2016 issued to him by the Institution of Government Approved Valuer is exhibited as Ex.D1W3/2 (OSR).

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 72 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016)

37. Mr. Ved Prakash Saini, defendant no. 3 in CS DJ 8380/2016 examined himself as D1W4. He tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.D1W4/A. Sh. Mohar Pal Singh, the defendant no. 4 in the said suit examined himself as D1W5. He tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.D1W5/A. They denied the allegations made by Kanwar Singh Saini against them.

38. All the witnesses examined as DWs were duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for LRs of Kanwar Singh Saini. At request of the parties, evidence was closed and the matters were fixed for final arguments.

FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF KANWAR SINGH SAINI.

39. Ld. Counsel for Kanwar Singh Saini (plaintiff in CS DJ No. 8380/2016 and the defendant in CS DJ No. 8379/2016) would explain to the Court all the proceedings done in the previous Civil Suit filed by Mohd. Yusuf, the proceedings in contempt proceedings before the Ld. Civil Judge, Hon'ble High Court and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Ld. Counsel would also explain the entire proceedings done in both the cases which are fixed for arguments. Ld. Counsel CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 73 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) would further argue that defendant no. 1 (Mohd. Yusuf), in connivance with the other defendants i.e. Ved Prakash Saini and Mohar Pal Singh had entered into a conspiracy to usurp the house of the plaintiff i.e. property no. 147A/148, Khirki Village, Delhi. The plaintiff has proved that in the guise of some loan documents, the defendants had misrepresented and played fraud upon the plaintiff and got executed sale deed dated 05.09.2002. In furtherance of their illegal design, they also filed a Civil Suit for injunction before Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts on 26.04.2003 being Civil Suit No. 106/2003. False allegations in the said suit were made that Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini was trying to dispossess Mohd. Yusuf from the suit property which he had purchased vide registered sale deed. On 29.04.2003, Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini was tricked by the defendants into giving a statement before the Court that he had sold the property to Mohd. Yusuf and he would not dispossess him from the same. Kanwar Singh Saini was told that the statement was necessary in order to obtain the loan. On 12.05.2003, the suit was disposed of by the Court with the observations that Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini would not breach CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 74 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) his undertaking. On 04.08.2003, defendant no. 3 Ved Prakash had tried to put his furniture and other articles in the house of the plaintiff to show the possession. There was a huge altercation. Villagers also gathered there. Police was also called. Ved Prakash was scolded by the villagers and police. It was unearthered at that time as to how Ved Prakash had played fraud upon the plaintiff in the guise of loan papers.

40. It has been further argued on behalf of Kanwar Singh Saini that the suit of Mohd. Yusuf is barred by not only the law but also by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was passed in the present case. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal 1798/2009 vide judgment dated 13.09.2011 has set aside the order dated 20.07.2009 of the Delhi High Court and also held that the remedy for defendant Mohd. Yusuf was to file the execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC . Therefore, the principle of res judicata is applicable here against the defendant Mohd. Yusuf.

41. It is further argued on behalf of Kanwar Singh Saini that plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini has proved through witnesses CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 75 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) that he and his family are in possession of the suit property since beginning and they never lost the possession. The plaintiff has examined 14 witnesses. Witness PW1 to PW9 are official witnesses to prove pending cases, complaints filed and bank forms etc. Witness PW10, PW11 and PW12 are public witnesses. They have deposed that K.S. Saini and his family are in possession of the suit property since beginning and they never lost the possession. They have also deposed regarding the incident dated 04.08.2003. They have also deposed regarding presence and involvement of Ved Prakash Saini, defendant no. 3 on the spot at the time of incident dated 04.08.2003. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW13. He has deposed as to how two properties came in hands of the plaintiff and how they were demolished and a single house was constructed. He has explained in length and brought on record the documents of the suit property. His cross examination has been conducted at length. Nothing contradictory has come in his cross examination. His testimony proves that he has always been in possession of the suit property and the possession was never parted with. Therefore, there cannot arise any question of CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 76 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) selling it to Mohd. Yusuf and no occasion has arisen to make a statement in the Court. The statement was made by the plaintiff only under the misrepresentation and fraud played upon him by the defendants. The plaintiff has also narrated the incident dated 04.08.2003 which corroborates the testimonies of other witnesses. PW14 Gaurav Saini, who is son of the plaintiff, has also been examined at length. Nothing contradictory has come in his cross examination. He has explained each and every incident. His testimony also proves that the possession of the suit property was never parted with. He has also narrated the incident dated 04.08.2003 which corroborates the testimonies of other witnesses. He has also explained the circumstances of the Will of the present property prepared by his grandfather. The evidence led by the plaintiff has proved that the statement before the Court was made by the plaintiff under misrepresentation and fraud. The plaintiff has also proved that the sale deed was also got signed from the plaintiff by playing fraud upon him.

42. Ld. Counsel for Kanwar Singh Saini would further argue that Mohd. Yusuf has failed to bring any evidence on CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 77 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) record that he was in possession of the suit property at any point of time. No public witness, villager or his own relative has been examined by him to show his possession over the suit property at any point of time. The entire case of the defendant revolves around Contempt Petition in which Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini was initially convicted and the conviction was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He has made contradictory statement in his evidence. In his cross examination, he has stated that he had paid Rs. 40,00,000/­ as cash which is per­se illegal as per the Income Tax Act . He admits of having no proof of his possession over the suit property. He admits that he did not file any police complaint which shows that he had filed a false suit. A prudent person would have first made a complaint to police rather than come to the Court directly. He does not have chain of the documents of the suit property. He admits the value of the suit property to be Rs. 42.1 Lakhs. He did not make any complaint for his missing or stolen goods which shows that he was never in possession. He knows nothing about the said property especially from inside. D1W2 Naresh Yadav is an interested CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 78 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) witness brought by defendant no. 3 because admittedly defendant no. 1 knows no one in the Village. The said witness has given description of the property in two plots. D1W3 Satish Bhatia, the valuer has also admitted that he never entered into the property. Thus, he had created a false documents at the behest of defendant no. 1 Mohd. Yusuf. His deposition has no value. D1W4 Ved Prakash is also an interested witness. His affidavit was not proper and therefore, he was not cross examined. He filed the affidavit mentioning the statements as if he was cross examining himself. However, his averments proved that the property was actually two plots. He accepts that he is distant relative of Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini. He also admits that criminal complaints have been filed against him by the plaintiff and FIR has been registered against him. Para 13 of his affidavit demolishes the entire case of Mohd. Yusuf and of his own. If he had no connection with the defendant no. 1 i.e. Mohd. Yusuf then what he was doing there. His affidavit shows the connivance between defendant no. 1, 3 and 4. D1W5 M.P. Singh is also in connivance with defendant. He admits that Kanwar Singh Saini never parted CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 79 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) with the possession of the property. All these things are sufficient to show that the plaintiff never sold the property to defendant Mohd. Yusuf and that his statement before the Ld. Civil Judge was procured by misrepresentation. Hence, it is prayed that the suit filed by Kanwar Singh Saini may be decreed in his favour while the suit filed by Mohd. Yusuf may be dismissed.

43. Ld. Counsel for Mohd. Yusuf (defendant no. 1 in CS DJ 8380/2016 and plaintiff in CS DJ 8379/2016) would also explain to the Court the entire proceedings starting from the Civil Suit filed by Mohd. Yusuf before Ld. Civil Judge for injunction, the CCP Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Contempt Petition filed before the Ld. Civil Judge, the reference being made by the Ld. Civil Judge to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the punishment awarded to Kanwar Singh Saini by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the petition filed CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 80 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by Kanwar Singh Saini, the intervenor application filed by Mohd. Yusuf and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He would also narrate all the proceedings in the current suits starting from their filings, the suit filed by the sons of Kanwar Singh Saini, its withdrawal, the probate petition filed by son of Kanwar Singh Saini which is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He would also narrate the sequence of events starting from 05.09.2002 i.e. the date of execution of the registered sale deed Ex. D1W1/2 till the framing of two additional issues on 01.09.2017.

44. Ld. Counsel for Mohd. Yusuf would further argue that issue no. 1, 1A, 1B and 2 are connected. Kanwar Singh Saini has taken false pleas in his suit and in the written statement filed in the suit by Mohd. Yusuf. It is argued that it is an admitted fact that the sale deed was executed by Kanwar Singh Saini in favour of Mohd. Yusuf. Burden was on Kanwar Singh Saini to prove that the sale deed dated 05.09.2002 was executed by him under misrepresentation of facts and fraud. However, he has failed to prove any such misrepresentation of CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 81 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) facts and fraud. He has also stated that his statement dated 29.04.2003 before the Ld. Civil Judge was a result of fraud played upon him. Again, burden was on him to prove the said fraud. No evidence has been brought on record to prove any such fraud. He has made various allegations against defendant no. 3 and 4. However, there is no reference to defendant no. 1 Mohd. Yusuf in those allegations. Kanwar Singh Saini has admitted in his cross examination that he is a graduate. Thus, he is an educated person. At one place he admits that he had made the statement before the Court and signed the statement. However, at other place, he denies his signatures on the ordersheet of the Court when his statement was recorded. On 22.03.2018, he admits presence of Mohd. Yusuf on 05.09.2002 when the sale deed was executed. Earlier, however, he had denied presence of Mohd. Yusuf on 05.09.2002. He had admitted receiving the summons in Suit No.106/2003. He himself has stated that Ld. Judge had asked him as to whether he had sold the property and that he had replied that he had sold the property. He also states that Ld. Judge had asked him would you dispossess from the property and he said no. Thus, CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 82 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) it shows that he had made a voluntary statement before the Ld. Civil Judge. He has taken false pleas with fraudulent motives. Being a graduate, Kanwar Singh Saini was well aware about all the documents which were executed by him and he was aware of nature of those documents. He was aware that he was executing a sale deed of the suit property in favour of Mohd. Yusuf. He was also aware that he was making a statement before the Court in relation to the suit property and the sale deed. Therefore, all the averments of Kanwar Singh Saini are afterthought to avoid his liability. The witnesses examined by Kanwar Singh Saini are interested witness. Their testimonies are not reliable. In any case, none of those witnesses have deposed anything regarding Mohd. Yusuf. Mohd. Yusuf has no concern with Mr. Ved Prakash Saini and M.P. Singh. He has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff vide registered sale deed which is valid. Therefore, Mohd. Yusuf is entitled to recover possession of the suit property from Kanwar Singh Saini. There is a presumption of correctness of registered documents being registered regularly. Therefore, the sale deed which is registered document is to be presumed valid CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 83 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) document unless the defendant is able to prove otherwise. However, Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini has failed to bring any evidence to show that the sale deed is an act of fraud and misrepresentation. The site plan filed by Mohd. Yusuf and by Kanwar Singh Saini are same. Kanwar Singh Saini deliberately with malafide intention has mentioned that site plan pertains to Plot No. 147A and 148. Kanwar Singh Saini has admitted that no objection certificate bearing no. 2943 dated 07.08.2002 was issued from the Office of Tehsildar, Notification Branch, Tis Hazari, Delhi in view of Section 8 of Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfers) Act 1972. It was mandatory to obtain such NOC before transfer of immovable property in Lal Dora Area. Kanwar Singh Saini had actively participated in obtaining the said certificate. He was required to prove fraud like any other charge in criminal offence. The fact of fraud has to be proved beyond doubts. The fraud cannot be based on suspicion or conjecture. The statement made by the plaintiff before Ld. Civil Judge is a judicial admission which is on higher footing than evidenciary admission. The statement made by Kanwar Singh Saini before Ld. Civil Judge CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 84 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) is binding upon him. Heavy onus was on Kanwar Singh Saini to show that apparent state of affairs was not the real state of affairs. The deposition of the plaintiff is full of lies. There are contradictions and admissions on his part. He was well versed with the legality of the things which is apparent from his cross examination dated 06.04.2018. He has stated in his cross examination that he had filed and defended litigation against his brother at Kurukshetra, Haryana in 1990s. He has also stated that he had appeared / defended number of cases, however, he did not recollect the exact number of cases. Thus, he is an educated person having sufficient knowledge of law, well aware of the proceedings happening in the Courts and before Sub Registrar. He has taken false pleas to usurp the money paid by Mohd. Yusuf to him. He has become dishonest. There is nothing on record to substantiate the averments made by him. Hence, it is prayed that the suit filed by Kanwar Singh Saini may be dismissed and the suit filed by Mohd. Yusuf may be decreed in favour of Mohd. Yusuf. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following judgments :

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 85 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016)

2. Abdul Rahim & Ors. Vs. S.K. Abdul Zabar & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 160.

3. Jamila Begum (Dead) Through LRs Vs. Shami Mohd. (Dead) Through LRs (2019) 2 SCC 727.

4. Vimal Chand Ghevar Chand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo (2009) 5 SCC 713.

5. Bellachi Vs. Pakeeran (2009) 12 SCC 95.

6. Union of India Vs. Chatur Bhai Patel & Company (1976) 1 SCC 747.

7. Nagin Das Ram Das Vs. Dalpat Ram Ichharam @ Brij Ram (1974) 1 SCC 242.

FINAL ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF V.P. SAINI AND M.P. SAINI.

45. Ld. Counsel for Mr. Ved Prakash Saini and Mr. M.P. Saini (defendants no. 3 and 4 in CS DJ 8380/2016) would argue that there are no merits in the allegations made by the plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini against her clients. False allegations have been made. There is no evidence against any of the defendant. There is no cause of action against any of her client. It has been shown on the record that the plaintiff has impleaded her clients just to harass them. The suit qua defendant no. 3 and 4 is barred by limitation. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed qua defendant no. 3 and

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS ON CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 86 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) ISSUES:

His allegation is that when he went to the office of Sub Registrar and signed the document there, he was under

means and includes--

51. In A.C. Ananthaswamy v. Boraiah , (2004) 8 SCC 588 Hon'ble Supre Court of India has held that 'Fraud' is to be pleaded and proved. It has held that to prove fraud, it must be proved that representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation or that the party could have no reasonable belief that it was true. The level of proof required in such cases is extremely higher. An ambiguous statement cannot per se make the representor guilty of fraud. To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 90 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation.

52. A mere mention of "fraud" in a pleading is not sufficient. A party pleading fraud is obliged, under Order VI Rule 4 CPC , to give particulars of the pleaded fraud - with dates and items, in the pleading. In the matter titled Union of India vs M/s Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co. (1976) 1 SCC 747, a suit was filed alleging fraud. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that fraud like any other charge of a criminal offence must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It has held as under:

53. The Sale deed in question, the certified copy of which is Ex.D1W1/2, shown to be executed by Kanwar Singh Saini in favour of Mohd. Yusuf is a registered document. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prem Singh v. Birbal , (2006) 5 SCC 353 has held that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. It was held that a registered document is prima facie valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rahim v. Sk. Abdul Zabar , (2009) 6 SCC 160 has also held that a registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party questioning the genuineness of the transaction to show that in law the transaction was not valid. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Bellachi (Dead) by LRs vs Pakeeran (2009) 12 SCC 95 and in case titled Jamila Begum (Dead) Th. LRs vs Shami Mohd. (Dead) Th. LRs . (2019) 2 SCC 727 has also held that there is a CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 92 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) presumption that a registered document was executed in accordance in law. Therefore, burden was on Kanwar Singh to prove that he had executed the sale deed under misrepresentation and fraud.

54. Perusal of testimony of Kanwar Singh Saini as PW13 would show that he is a graduate. Kanwar Singh Saini, in his cross examination, would state that he was born on 15.04.1954 at Khirki Village, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. In the year 1966, he had shifted to Kurukshetra along with his entire family. He would state that he had studied till Graduation and completed his Graduation in Arts in the year 1972 from Punjab University. He had joined Post Graduation but did not complete it. He would also state that in the year 1979 he had done ITI. Thus, he is a well educated person who completed his graduation about 30 years prior to execution of the sale deed in question. He was well educated and could easily read and understand the contents of a document which was presented before him for his signatures.

55. PW13 would also state in his cross examination that after completion of Graduation he returned to Khirki Village, CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 93 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Delhi and started doing agricultural work. He had also worked in a Magazine Publication House in the year 1979 which used to publish Scooter Guide and Auto Guide. He used to run a Motor Garage for repair and accessories of Cars etc. This part of his testimony has proved that Kanwar Singh Saini was a person well aware of ways and means of the world and that he was not a person residing in some remote village of country not aware how the things function in cities or towns, and in offices.

56. Kanwar Singh Saini also appears to be well aware of the Court proceedings, how Courts in Delhi function, how work in the office of sub registrar is done. There are two affidavits of evidence filed by Kanwar Singh Saini which were not tendered in evidence, however, they were on record. The first affidavit was attested on 07.11.2014. In this affidavit, Kanwar Singh Saini has stated that he had witnessed various documents which were executed and signed in his presence as mentioned in para 3 and 4 of the affidavit. He has also stated that documents were presented for registration in his presence and they were returned after registration. This affidavit is CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 94 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) shown to be filed for the purpose of evidence. However, it was never tendered in evidence. Be that as it may, it is an affidavit containing the signatures of Kanwar Singh Saini and the contents of the affidavit are shown to be made on oath. There is another affidavit dated 28.11.2014. The said affidavit is also shown to be affidavit of evidence of Kanwar Singh Saini. In the said affidavit, the witness in paras 3 to 6 has tried to make those admissions nullified. Thus, it is shown that the witness is in the habit of changing his statements on oath from time to time as per his convenience. Such a witness cannot be believed when he depose in the Court regarding certain facts. Be that as it may it can be safely said that Kanwar Singh Saini is a person who is well aware as to how legal documents are prepared and presented for registration.

57. Kanwar Singh Saini would state in his cross examination that he did not remember whether prior to 2003 he had ever appeared in the Court in any case. However, in the next sentence, he admitted that he had appeared personally in a land acquisition matter relating to his ancestral property at Khirki Village, pending in the Court since 1962. He also states CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 95 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) that he had filed and defended litigation against his brother at Kurukshetra Haryana in the 1990s. He also states that prior to 2003, he had appeared / defended a number of cases, however, he did not remember exact number of cases. He would also state that document Ex.PW13/1 to Ex.PW13/4 were prepared in his presence. The Will Ex.PW13/3 was registered in his presence on 29.11.1979 in the office of Sub­Registrar. When he was confronted with sale deed Ex.PW13/9, a sale deed executed by his wife in his favour, he would state that the document was prepared on 03.04.2000 in the office of Sub­ Registrar. He and his wife had gone for preparation of the sale deed which was prepared by Mr. Vijay Ross on his instructions. Thus, he is aware how a sale deed looks like, how it is prepared, how it is executed and how and where it is registered. There is no evidence on record to show that such a person could be under a reasonable belief that he was required to go to office of a Sub Registrar to get loan documents prepared and that the loan documents were required to be signed in the presence of Sub Registrar and further that loan documents were required to be registered. Such a prudent CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 96 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) person could have come to know the contents of the document after reading the same. Similarly, he does not appear to be a man who would be under a wrong impression that he was required to appear before a Civil Judge in a suit for the purpose of obtaining loan from a society. As the record would show, he was not under any misrepresentation or fraud as alleged by him. He was well aware that he was signing a sale deed.

58. Perusal of testimony of PW13 would also show that he changes his statements at every step. PW13 would state in his cross examination at one point that on the date of execution of sale deed on 05.09.2002 Mohd. Yusuf was present there. He was confronted with his previous cross examination dated 02.01.2006 which is part of Ex.PW13/43. He admits that the statement made by him in that cross examination was incorrect qua the absence of Mohd. Yusuf on 05.09.2002 at the time of execution of the document. He also submits that his statement qua the execution of the document at the office of Sub­ Registrar Mehrauli was also wrong. He also admits that his statement that he did not know Mohd. Yusuf prior to 05.09.2002 was also wrong.

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 97 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016)

59. Testimony of PW13 would also show that he had made a statement before Ld. Civil Judge on 29.04.2003 and that he was aware of the contents of his statement, its nature and implications. PW13 would state in his cross examination that he was not aware of the statement given by him in the Court of Sh. S.S. Malhotra, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, New Delhi on 29.04.2003 in matter of Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini. He would state that he discovered it for the first time only on 04.08.2003 when Mr. Ved Prakash Saini came to take forceful possession of the suit property. He would again say that he was not aware of the statement dated 29.04.2003 recorded before Ld. Civil Judge even on 04.08.2003. He would again change his statement and say that on 04.08.2003 when Ved Prakash Saini came to take possession of the suit property, he came to learn that the statement made by him before the Ld. Civil Judge on 29.04.2003 was not in respect of loan but in respect of sale of suit property.

60. PW13 in his cross examination would also submit that he himself had received summons of the suit 106/2003 at the instance of Ved Prakash Saini. He would state that a person CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 98 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) had brought the summons and he was informed that he was from the Court. He also states that he was in the need of loan in the year 2001­2002. PW13 would further state in his cross examination that he did not remember that on 29.04.2003 whether he was asked by the Ld. Judge to put his signature on any ordersheet. However, he would state, Ld. Judge asked him as to whether he had sold the property and he replied that he did. He also states that Ld. Judge also asked "would you dispossess from the property" to which he replied 'no'. This part of his testimony is sufficient to prove that he was aware that the Ld. Judge had asked him whether he had sold his property. The question put by Ld. Civil Judge, as told by the witness in his cross examination, is very simple and clear. There is no scope of any misunderstanding or misrepresentation or fraud. If he had not sold his property, he could have simply said 'no'. There was no reason for him to say 'yes' if he was not aware that he had executed a sale deed in favour of Mohd. Yusuf and not loan documents. He would have come to know about allegd misrepresentation or fraud at that time. A prudent person must have brought such facts in the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 99 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) knowledge of Ld. Judge at that time. There is only one plausible explanation to the answers given by him to the questions asked by Ld. Civil Judge. The fact that he had said 'yes' to the said question is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of probabilities, that Kanwar Singh Saini was well aware that he had sold his property to Mohd Yusuf and thus he was well aware of the contents of the sale deed executed by him in relation to the suit property. His answer to second question is sufficient to prove, on the preponderance of probabilities, that he had given possession of the suit property to Mohd, Yusuf and that he had no intention to dispossess him. Again, there appears to be no misrepresentation or fraud. Rather, if averment of Kanwar Singh Saini is to be believed, he had misrepresented to the Ld. Civil Judge and played fraud upon the Court by making such a false statement which he knew was false.

61. Kanwar Singh Saini has made allegation that he had not given any instruction to advocate Mr. D.S. Sharma who appeared in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge on his behalf and filed his vakalatnama on his behalf. However, he has admitted in his CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 100 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) cross examination that he did not make any complaint to any authority against Advocate Mr. D.S. Sharma of Tis Hazari Court, who had represented him before the Ld. Civil Judge. This fact also shows that his allegations are without merits and he has failed to prove them on the preponderance of probabilities.

62. Kanwar Singh Saini has alleged that the sale deed in question was got executed by Ved Prakash Saini and M.P. Saini by playing fraud and misrepresentation. However, there is no material on record, except the self serving statement of Kanwar Singh Saini himself, to prove that Mr. V.P. Saini and Mr. M.P. Saini or any of them were present at the time of execution of the sale deed in question. His self serving statement does not inspire confidence for the aforesaid reasons.

63. Kanwar Singh Saini in his pleadings and evidence has stated that he had got the valuation of the suit property done in the year 2001, i.e. prior to the sale deed in question. He states that the value of the suit property was Rs.71,00,000/­ in the year 2002 and therefore, he could not have sold it at such a cheap price. This averment of Kanwar Singh also shows that CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 101 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) he is not such a layman who does not know anything about the worldly affairs. Rather, he is such an intelligent person who gets the valuation of his property done. There is however no explanation on record as to why he got the valuation of his property done if he was not interested in selling his property. There can be one plausible explanation that he was interested in selling his property and that is why he got done valuation of his property. He has stated that he was in need of loan in the year 2002.

64. It is also one of the averment of Kanwar Singh Saini that he had not received the entire consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed and therefore, sale deed is not valid. I have considered the submission. I do not find any merits in the same. The details of the payment are duly mentioned in the sale deed. Thus, the payment mentioned in the sale deed is considered to be proved to be made to Kanwar Singh Saini. Be that as it may, Kanwar Singh Saini cannot dispute the sale deed by alleging that he has not received the entire sale consideration. The intention of the parties from the sale deed in question appears to be that it was a sale and hence, the said CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 102 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) averment is not a valid averment. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled Vidhyadhar Vs. Manik Rao & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1441 has held that the real test is the intention of the parties and in order to constitute sale, the party must intend to transfer the ownership of the property. It is also held that the intention is to be gathered from the recital in the sale deed, conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. It has held as under :

indicate that actual payment of whole of the price at the time of the execution of sale deed is not sine qua non to the completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and thereafter registered, if the property is of the value of more than Rs. 100/­, the sale would be complete.

65. Mohd. Yusuf has also relied upon an 'NOC' obtained from the office of Tehsildar (LAC) under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 which is Mark X. The document has been admitted by Kanwar Singh Saini. He document bears signatures of Kanwar Singh Saini. Thus, it is shown by Mohd. Yusuf that before execution of the sale deed in question a 'No Objection Certificate' was also obtained from the concerned government department for sale of the suit property. It bears signatures of Kanwar Singh Saini. It shows the name of the transferor as 'Kanwar Singh Saini' and the name of the transferee as 'Mohd. Yusuf'. It also contains the detailed description - location area and other particulars of the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 104 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) property proposed to be transferred as house no. 148, land measuring 198 sq.yds. comprised in Khasra No. 78, situated in Lal Dora (1908­09) abadi - deh of Khirki Village, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The transferor has shown rights of ownership in the property. The property is residential and the consideration of transfer is mentioned as Rs. 2,10,000/­. It also contains a declaration signed by both the parties. Thus, the material on record has proved that Kanwar Singh Saini had applied for permission to sell the suit property to Mohd. Yusuf which was granted vide document Mark X. There is no allegation made by Kanwar Singh Saini that he had been subjected to fraud and misrepresentation at the time of application for obtaining the said certificate. The said NOC is also mentioned in the Sale deed in question. As 'NOC' is shown to have been obtained before execution of the sale deed, it is hard to believe that Kanwar Singh Saini was not aware that he was executing a sale deed and not loan documents. In his pleadings and affidavits of evidence, Kanwar Singh Saini has not averred that he was taken to the office of Tehsildar also under any fraud or misrepresentation. In his replication to the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 105 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Written Statement of Mohd. Yusuf, he has made a vague averment that the NOC was also part of the series of fraud committed by the defendants. He has not explained as to who and under what circumstances, he had gone to the Concerned office to apply for the NOC. Therefore adverse inference is to be drawn against him.

66. Plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini has examined 14 witnesses, including himself, in support of his averments. Witnesses PW1 to PW9 are formal witnesses who have produced documents. Those documents are in relation to the averments made by him against V.P. Saini and M.P. Saini. However, no relief is claimed by him qua those defendants. Therefore, no purpose would be served by discussing evidentiary value of those documents. None of those documents are able to establish any relation of Mohd. Yusuf with V.P. Saini and M.P. Saini. These documents are also not able to show any relation with the sale deed in question, or with the statement made by Kanwar Singh Saini before Ld. Civil Judge, or with the suit property.

67. PW10 Mahender Kaushik is examined as neighbour of CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 106 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Kanwar Singh Saini. He has deposed regarding the quarrel between Kanwar Singh Saini and Ved Prakash Saini on 04.08.2003. His statement is regarding arrival of the police on the spot on that day, presence of other villagers at the spot and a settlement written by Ved Prakash Saini. He has also stated that after one month of the said incident, Kanwar Singh Saini had come to him and asked to give a statement regarding what he had seen on 04.08.2003. He had written the said statement on a paper and handed over the same to Mr. Kanwar Singh Saini. The statement is Ex. PW10/1. The witness in his cross examination has stated that he did not remember the exact date and time of incident dated 04.08.2003, however, he has stated that the incident had happened before 02:00 pm. He again said it happened between 12:00 pm to 02:00 pm. He did not know what was written by Ved Prakash i.e. defendant no. 3 in the statement and that he was told by the others that it was a settlement. He states that there were 2 house bearing no. 147 and 149 owned by Sultan Singh Saini and Kanwar Singh Saini, however, he did not know which of the house was owned by Kanwar Singh Saini. He also could not identify the house of CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 107 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Sultan Singh Saini. He, however, states that both the house were demolished by the plaintiff and a common construction was raised. He did not know when the plaintiff got his house exchanged from Sultan Singh Saini. He also did not know whether the house of Sultan Singh Saini was ever owned by Sultan Singh Saini i.e. father of the plaintiff. He has also stated that he had recollected the day of 04.08.2003 after reading his statement Ex. PW10/1. Thus, the testimony of PW10 regarding the alleged incident is not reliable. He does not have any personal knowledge as to whom the articles lying in and around the suit property belonged. He also does not know who had called the police. He was told by persons that defendant no. 3 was trying to place his goods in the suit premises. Thus, this part of his testimony is hearsay.

68. PW11 Sandeep Singh Saini has also been examined as a witness of incident dated 04.08.2003 and regarding possession of the suit property by Kanwar Singh Saini. He would state that he had written the document Ex. PW11/1 after about one month or one and a half month or two months from the incident. He is not summoned witness and he had admitted that CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 108 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) he had come for evidence on asking of plaintiff. He had not seen anybody keeping the article at the suit premises. Thus, he had written the alleged statement after a long gap and therefore it is hard to believe that he would remember the correct date of the incident. He would state that he did not ask defendant no. 3 as to why he was keeping his goods at the suit property. He also did not know who had called the police and he also did not know whether the document written was a settlement or not. PW12 Anil Saini has also been examined in relation to those facts. In his cross examination, he submits that one paper was created by writing the terms and signing the same, however, he did not see the purported settlement being written at that time. He would state that he would mention the name of Mohd. Yusuf in Ex. PW12/1 since later on he came to know about the entire incident of 04.08.2003 had occasioned due to attempt of Mohd. Yusuf in trying to usurp the suit property. He would also state that the plaintiff had demolished the structure at property number 147A and 148 and raised new construction and he came to reside in the suit property around 1995. He would state that he could not tell even a single name who had CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 109 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) signed on the settlement arrived between the plaintiff and defendant no. 3.

69. Gaurav Saini, PW14 is son of Kanwar Singh Saini. He has stated in his cross examination that he is aware that the present case is regarding the property number 147A and 148, Khirki Village, New Delhi. He also admits that property number 147A and 148 are subject matter of Probate Petition filed by him before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He states that he did not know whether his grandfather had executed a power of attorney in favour of his mother in respect of property number 147A. He admits that he was not present when his father was taken to the Office of Sub Registrar or to Tis Hazari as mentioned in his affidavit. He claims to be owner of the suit property according to Will of his grandfather. He also states that he had sold part of the suit premises vide sale deed dated 16.09.2009 executed by him in favour of Mr. S.M. Afif Ashen and Ms. Sahar Fatima. He admits the certified copy of the said sale deed which is Ex. PW14/D3/Y. He admits that contempt proceedings are pending against him due to execution of document Ex. PW14/D3/Y. He would state that on 04.08.2003, CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 110 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) after the incident when everybody left the suit property, he asked his father, then he informed about the execution of the sale deed dated 05.09.2002. He does not know whether his father had purchased or sold any other property apart from the suit property. He is an interested witness and therefore his testimony is required to be considered with caution. He had sold part of the suit property to third party after execution of the sale deed in question.

70. Perusal of the testimonies of PW10, PW11, PW12 and PW14 would show that they have no knowledge regarding the execution of the sale deed and the proceedings in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari in the suit filed by Mohd. Yusuf against Kanwar Singh Saini.

71. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam , (1974) 1 SCC 242 has discussed the effects of judicial admissions. It has held as under:

72. In the present case, the admissions made by Kanwar Singh Saini in the Civil Suit before Ld. Civil Judge were clear. He himself admitted them to be true. Nothing has come on record to show that he had made those admissions under misrepresentation or fraud. He has failed to prove the allegation of fraud as per law.

73. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain v. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo , (2009) 5 SCC 713, has discussed the effects of a registered sale deed. It has held as under:

74. Sale is defined as being a transfer of ownership for a price. In a sale, there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the properties sold. No rights are left in the transferor. The price is fixed by the contract antecedent to the conveyance. Price is the essence of a contract of sale. There is only one mode of transfer by sale in regard to immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or more and that is by a registered instrument. It is also well settled that payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("the Act", for short) defines "sale" as "a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part­paid and part­ CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 113 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) promised". If the intention of parties was that title should pass on execution and registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non­payment of price (or balance price as the case may be) thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. He cannot avoid the sale. As Mohd Yusuf has been able to prove that the deed of sale was duly executed and it was neither a sham transaction nor represented a transaction of different character, a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable. A heavy onus was on Kanwar Singh Saini to show that the apparent state of affairs was not the real state of affairs. However, he has failed to discharge the burden as per law. The material on record is not able to prove his defence.

75. It has been mentioned in the written arguments filed by Kanwar Singh Saini that the suit of Mohd. Yusuf is barred by limitation. However, no oral argument was made in this regard. It is not mentioned in the written arguments as to how the suit is barred by limitation. I do not find the suit to be barred by limitation. The suit of Mohd. Yusuf is for a relief of possession of the suit property and mesne profits. The sale deed of the suit CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 114 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) property is proved to be executed by Kanwar Singh Saini in favour of Mohd. Yusuf on 05.09.2002. As per Mohd. Yusuf, he was dispossessed from the suit property on 04.08.2003. Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides limitation period of 12 years for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. Time starts running when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The present suit has been filed by Mohd. Yusuf within 12 years from the date of purchasing the suit property and from the date of dispossession. The suit is therefore within limitation.

76. It has also been stated on behalf of Kanwar Singh Saini that the suit of Mohd. Yusuf is barred by res judicata as he had to file execution of decree passed by Ld. Civil Judge and second suit for possession is barred by principle of res judicata. It is argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal 1798/2009, vide judgment dated 13.09.2011 had set aside the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and observed that remedy for Mohd. Yusuf was to file execution petition.

77. I have studied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 115 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has held at the end that the observation in the said order shall not affect, in any manner, merit of other proceedings between the parties in regard to suit property.

78. As the record would show, the suit filed before Ld. Civil Judge was a suit for permanent Injunction. No doubt, after dispossession by Kanwar Singh Saini, he could have filed execution. However suit for possession is not barred in such a case. The earlier suit was not decided on merits and therefore principle of res judicata is not applicable in such circumstances. Section 11 , the CPC provides principle of res judicata. The Section reads as under:

79. The earlier suit for injunction filed by Mohd. Yusuf against Kanwar Singh Saini was not decided on merits. Therefore, subsequent suit for possession is not hit by principle of res judicata.

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 116 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016)

80. It is also argued on behalf of Kanwar Singh Saini that witnesses have shown that Kanwar Singh Saini was always in possession of the suit property and he never parted with the possession of the suit property. However, I am of the considered opinion that once it has been proved that the sale deed of suit property was validly executed by Kanwar Singh Saini in favour of Mohd. Yusuf and that the fact of handing over of possession is duly mentioned in the said sale deed, he is not permitted to lead oral evidence to prove that the possession was not transferred. In any case, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vimal Chand Ghevar Chand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo (2009) 5 SCC 713 once Mohd, Yusuf has proved that the deed of sale was duly executed and it was neither a sham transaction nor represented a transaction of different character, a suit for recovery of possession was maintainable.

81. It is further argued that the value of suit property at the relevant time was Rs.71,00,000/­ and therefore, the plaintiff could not have transferred the property for a meager amount of Rs. 2,10,000/­. It is also argued that Mohd. Yusuf in his cross CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 117 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) examination has stated that he had paid Rs. 40,00,000/­ in cash which is violation of the law under the Income Tax Act .

82. I have considered these submissions. Mohd. Yusuf in his pleadings has no where stated that he had paid Rs. 40,00,000/­ in cash. This fact has come for the first time in his cross examination and therefore, it does not inspire the confidence of the Court. The sale deed in question is therefore, considered to be executed for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/­ only. Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872 provides, interalia, that an agreement to which the consent of the promiser is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate. However, the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the Court in determining the question whether the consent of the promiser was freely given. In the present case, Kanwar Singh Saini has not alleged any undue influence or force. His allegation is of misrepresentation and fraud. However, as already discussed, the material on record is not able to prove any misrepresentation or fraud. Rather, it is shown on the preponderance of probabilities that Kanwar Singh Saini was aware of the nature of document and its CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 118 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) content. He had applied for 'NOC' before the concerned officer and obtained the same. Hence, he was aware as to what document he was signing at the relevant time.

83. There is one more important aspect which is worth noting. It is on record that Mr. Gaurav Saini, son of plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini, had sold half of the suit property on 17.09.2009 through a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/­. Thus, as per this calculation, the maximum value of the suit property would be Rs. 10,00,000/­ in the year 2009. Therefore, the sale consideration of Rs. 2,10,000/­ for the suit property on 05.09.2002 does not appear to be inadequate. Hence, the argument of Ld. Counsel for Kanwar Singh Saini that consideration was inadequate is not sufficient to make the sale deed void or voidable.

84. In view of the discussion hereinabove, I hold that Kanwar Singh Saini has failed to prove, on the preponderance of probabilities, that the sale deed dated 05.09.2002 executed by him in respect of suit property in favour of Mohd. Yusuf was signed by him under misrepresentation of facts and/or fraud. He has also failed to prove, on preponderance of CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 119 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) probabilities, that the statement made by him on 29.04.2003 before the Ld. Civil Judge in the suit titled Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini was a result of a fraud played upon him as pleaded in the plaint. He has also failed to prove that the order dated 12.05.2003 passed on the basis of statement dated 29.04.2003 is null and void being procured by misrepresentation of facts and fraud played upon him. Hence, the issues no. 1, 1A and 1B are decided against plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini.

85. Issue No. 2 : This issue reads as under:

86. In view of the findings of issue no. 1, I hold that plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini is not entitled to declaration as prayed for in clause (b) of the suit filed by Kanwar Singh Saini. Hence, issue no. 2 is decided against Kanwar Singh Saini (and his LRs).

87. Issue No. 3 : This issue reads as under :

88. In view of the findings of issue no. 1, 1A and 1B, I hold that plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini is not entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for. Hence, issue no. 3 is decided against Kanwar Singh Saini.

89. Issue No. 4 : This issue reads as under:

90. Plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf has proved that the sale deed, certified copy of which is Ex. D1W1/2 was duly executed by Kanwar Singh Saini in favour of Mohd. Yusuf. In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vimal CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 121 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Chand Ghevar Chand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo (2009) 5 SCC 713, once Mohd. Yusuf has proved that the deed of sale was duly executed and it was neither a sham transaction nor represented a transaction of different character, a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable.

91. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pandit Chunchun Jha vs Sheikh Ebadat Ali and Another : AIR 1954 SC 345 has observed that the intention of the parties is the determining factor. Where a document has to be construed the intention must be gathered, in the first place, from the document itself. If the words are express and clear., effect must be given to them and any extraneous enquiry into what was thought or intended is ruled out. The real question in such a case is not what the parties intended or meant but what is the legal effect of the words which they used. If, however, there is ambiguity in the language employed, then it is permissible to look to the surrounding circumstances to determine what was intended. In the present case, the sale deed clearly contains a clause that the possession of the suit property was handed over to the vendee by the vendor. Kanwar Singh Saini himself admitted the said CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 122 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) fact when he made a statement before the Ld. Civil Judge. Hence, now he is not permitted to dispute the said fact by leading contradictory evidence. As already discussed, the testimonies of the witnesses examined by Kanwar Singh Saini to prove his continuous possession are not reliable. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that Mohd. Yusuf has proved, on the preponderance of probabilities that he had come in possession of the suit property as mentioned in para 2, page 4 of the sale deed in question, certified copy of which is Ex. D1W1/2. Perusal of the sale deed would show that it is mentioned at para 2 at page 4 of the sale deed that the actual physical vacant possession of the said property had been delivered by the vendor to the vendee, on the spot.

92. Be that as it may, even if it is to be accepted that possession was never delivered to Mohd. Yusuf, that fact would not deprive him to claim ownership on the basis of his title derived from the sale deed, and to claim possession of the suit property from Kanwar Singh Saini, since he has not set up any defence to claim possessory rights in the suit property. Hence, I hold that plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf in CS DJ No. CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 123 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) 8379/2016 [CS (OS) No. 1604/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi] is entitled to possession of the suit property bearing no. 148 measuring 198 sq.Yards comprising Khasra No. 78, Village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110017, more particularly shown as bounded red in site plan Ex. D1W1/1. Issue No. 4 is therefore, decided in favour of plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf.

93. Issue No. 5: This issue reads as under :

94. It is proved that Kanwar Singh Saini and his family members have been residing in the suit property even after selling the suit property to Mohd. Yusuf and by dispossessing him. Therefore, Mohd. Yusuf is entitled to mesne profits / user charges from Kanwar Singh Saini from the date of dispossession.

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 124 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016)

95. Mohd. Yusuf has prayed for mesne profits / user charges @ Rs. 30,000/­ per month for the period w.e.f. 01.05.2008 till institution of the suit. This claim of Mohd. Yusuf is within limitation.

96. Kanwar Singh has examined witness D1W2 Naresh Kumar Yadav. He has brought on record one rent/lease agreement shown to be executed on 28.09.2018 in relation to flat no. S­4, Third Floor of property bearing no. R­54, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi consisting of 2 bed rooms, drawing­cum­dining, kitchen and 2 toilet­cum­baths. In the said lease deed, the rent of the said property is mentioned as Rs. 17,000/­ per month. It is stated in his testimony that the property is in proximity with the suit property. The LRs of Kanwar Singh Saini have not brought any evidence on record to show as to what is the rent of properties similar to the suit property in the area.

97. Plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf has claimed mesne profits @ Rs. 30,000/­ per month w.e.f. 01.05.2008. He has led evidence to show that property situated in the same locality is fetching rent of Rs. 17,000/­ per month in the year 2018. Plaintiff Mohd.

CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 125 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Yusuf has not brought any other evidence on record to show as to what rent could the suit property fetch in the year 2008. He has also not brought any evidence as to what could be the rent of a property in the same locality which is equivalent to the size of the suit property. The suit property consists of 1 basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The basement is shown to consisting of one hall and toilet / bathroom. Ground floor and the first floor each have 2 bedrooms, 1 drawing room, kitchen, toilet and bathroom. The second floor consists of one room, kitchen, toilet and bathroom.

98. While deciding the mesne profits, no accurate calculation can be made and some guess work is required to be done by the Court. The Court can also take judicial notice of the increasing trend in the rents of the properties in Delhi. I get strength from the judgment titled Fab India Overseas Pvt. Ltd. V. S.N. Sheopori : 2013 SCC Online DEL 404, wherein Hon'ble High Court has held as under:

99. In the present case, the suit property is situated in Lal Dora area of a village. There is no evidence on record to show as to what is the width of the road in front of the suit property. Whether cars and other four wheelers can easily reach at the suit property or not. Whether there is ample parking space or not. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the suit property could have got a rent of Rs. 10,000/­ per month in the year 2008. In these circumstances, I hold that plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf is entitled to recovery of Rs. 10,000/­ per month as mesne profits of suit property from Kanwar Singh Saini w.e.f. 01.05.2008. There shall be an increase of 10% after every two years in the sate of mesne profits. He shall be entitled to enhances mesne profits by 10% every 2 years CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 127 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) from the said date till the possession of the suit property is handed over to him. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf.

100. Issue No. 6 & 7 : These issues are taken together as they are interconnected and require common discussion. The issues read as under :

101. Plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf has prayed for interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of mesne profits. He has calculated sum of Rs. 5,83,000/­ as interest on the amount of mesne profits for 3 years before the filing of the suit @ 18% p.a.

102. As per Section 34 of the Interest Act, it is the discretion of the Court to award interest in a decree for payment of money. The section reads as under :

means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970).

103. Section 34 of the CPC also provides the same law in relation to the interest to be awarded in a money suit. Thus, the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 129 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) Court has to decide whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is reasonable or not.

104. In the present case, plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf has claimed interest @ 18% p.a. The rate of interest claimed by plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf appears to be excessive rate of interest. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant such a high rate of interest to plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates (P) Ltd. V. DDA , 2010 SCC Online Del 2444 has held that higher rates of interest, which are against public policy, can be struck down by the Court by finding such rates of interest to be against the public policy. Any Contract, which is against the public policy, is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The said Judgment was also relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court in the case bearing R.F.A. no. 823/2004 titled Shri Sanjay Mittal Versus Sunil Jain, decided on 07.12.2018.

105. In Fab India Overseas Pvt. Ltd. V. S.N. Sheopori :

106. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the position of law as discussed hereinabove, I hold that plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf is entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from the date when the amount became due till preparation of decree. He shall be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization of the amount. The issues no. 6 and 7 are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf.

107. Issue No. 8 & 9 : These issues are taken together as they require common discussion. The issues read as under :

108. Plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini filed his suit originally against defendant Mohd. Yusuf and Sub Registrar. Defendant no. 3 and 4 were impleaded on an application filed by Kanwar Singh Saini in his suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC . Despite impleadment of defendant no. 3 and 4, Kanwar Singh Saini did not amend his suit. There is no relief claimed in the suit qua defendant no. 3 and 4. There are certain allegations against defendant no. 3 and 4 made by Kanwar Singh Saini in the plaint. However, no relief is claimed in relation to those allegations. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that Kanwar Singh Saini has no cause of action qua defendant no. 3 and 4. Further, it is settled position of law that Limitation Act bars a remedy and not a right of a party. In the present case, no relief has been sought qua defendant no. 3 and 4 by Kanwar Singh Saini and therefore, he is not claiming any remedy against them. As already stated, Kanwar Singh Saini has failed to show any cause of action against defendant no. 3 and 4. Issue No. 8 and 9 are accordingly decided against CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 132 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) plaintiff Kanwar Singh Saini.

109. Issue No. 10 : Relief - In view of the findings of the issues recorded hereinabove, CS DJ 8380/2016 [old CS (OS) 3102/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi] titled Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost in the said case. CS DJ 8379/2016 [old CS (OS) 1604/2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi] titled Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Sh. Kanwar Singh Saini is decreed. Plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf is entitled to a decree of recovery of possession of the property No. 148 measuring 198 sq.Yards comprising Khasra No. 78, Village Khirki, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110017, more particularly shown as bounded red in site plan Ex. D1W1/1. Plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf is also entitled to a decree of recovery of mesne profits @ 10,000/­ per month w.e.f. 01.05.2008. He shall be entitled to enhanced mesne profits by 10% every 2 years from the said date till the possession of the suit property is handed over to him. Plaintiff Mohd. Yusuf is also entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from the date when the amount became due till preparation of decree. He is further entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. from the CS DJ No. 8380/2016 & CS DJ 8379/2016 CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 133 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yusuf & Ors. (CS DJ 8380/2016) And Mohd. Yusuf Vs. Kanwar Singh Saini (CS DJ 8379/2016) date of decree till realization of the amount. He is also entitled to the cost of the suit.

110. Joint Decree sheet be prepared accordingly in duplicate.

111. This judgment is also prepared in duplicate (two copies). Each copy is signed as original to be kept in both the cases separately.

Pronounced in the open Court on this 28th day of August 2023.

(DINESH KUMAR) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE­02, SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.

CNR No. DLST01­000015­2005 & CNR No. DLST01­000518­2011 Page 134 of 134 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ­02/South/Saket/ND/28.08.2023