Delhi District Court
Veena Rani vs Naseeb Singh on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
Civ DJ 608563/2016
CNR Number: DLWT01-000026-2008
In the matter of:
Smt. Veena Rani (since deceased)
Through her LRs
1 (a) Shri Amrik Singh (husband)
S/o Shri Bhagat Singh
R/o Building Z4, Flat 119 England Cluster
International City Dubai
Also at
F-87, Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi
1 (b) Shri Paramjit Singh (Son)
S/o Shri Amrik Singh's
R/o 16 Redwater Drive, Etobicoke
Ontario Canada, M9W 1Z6
1 (c) Shri Jaskarn Singh (son)
S/o Shri Amrik Singh's
R/o 16 Redwater Drive, Etobicoke
Ontario Canada, M9W 1Z6 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shri Naseeb Singh
S/o Shri Swaroop Singh
R/o E-76, Om Vihar Phase-V
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
2. Shri Manjeet Singh
S/o Shri Sardar Ravel Singh
R/o GD-6, G-Block,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064.
3. Shri Satinder Bir Singh
S/o Shri Sardar Singh Rakhi
R/o B-X-678, Khudd Mohalla,
Ludhiana, Punjab. ..... Defendants
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 1 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:10:55 +0530
Date of institution : 21.11.2008
Date of reserved for judgment : 21.01.2026
Date of judgment : 31.01.2026
Suit for cancellation of general power of attorney dated nil executed by
defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 3. Agreement to sell dated
22.04.2008 and sale deed dated 09.07.2008 by defendant no. 3 in favour
of defendant no. 1 and 2 in respect of property bearing plot no. 4
(admeasuring 250 sq. yards) out of Rect no. 89 Killa no. 16, 17, 24 and
25 Rect 90 Killa no. 4/1, 4/2, 5/1 and 5/2 and 6 situated at revenue estate
of village Hastsal Colony known as Dayal Sar Road, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi and with further prayer for grant of decree of declaration to the
effect that plaintiff being owner in possession of above registered
property on the strength of agreement to sell dated 31.01.1992, general
power of attorney, receipt, affidavit, will dated 31.01.1992 etc. and for
grant of permanent injunction.
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case
1. The plaintiff states that the subject property, being Plot No. 4
admeasuring 250 square yards situated at Village Hastsal, Delhi, was
originally jointly owned by several persons who sold it in 1973 to Smt.
Kulwant Kaur through a registered sale deed, making her the sole owner.
Subsequently, Smt. Kulwant Kaur sold 50 square yards of the plot to Smt.
Krishna Verma and the remaining 200 square yards to Shri Khajan Singh
in 1981 through agreements to sell, registered receipts, and irrevocable
General Powers of Attorney. Later, in 1982, Smt. Krishna Verma sold her
50 square yards share to Shri Khajan Singh, thereby making him the
exclusive owner of the entire 250 square yards plot, in possession of
which he raised boundary walls, constructed rooms, and obtained an
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 2 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:11:01 +0530
electricity connection.
2. It is the case of plaintiff that she is an NRI settled in the UAE since
her marriage in 1986. She purchased the entire plot from Shri Khajan
Singh in 1992 for a consideration of Rs. 1.25 lakhs through an agreement
to sell, GPA, Will, affidavit, and registered receipt, which was the normal
mode of transaction in Delhi at that time. The plaintiff was put into actual
and physical possession of the property and carried out repairs and
maintenance. Due to her absence from India, the vacant plot became
vulnerable, and local persons started dumping garbage on it.
3. In May 2008, the plaintiff received information that a local
property dealer (Defendant No. 1), in collusion with antisocial elements
and others, attempted to demolish the boundary wall to forcibly grab the
plot. The plaintiff and her husband immediately came to Delhi, stopped
the illegal demolition with police intervention, and lodged complaints
with police authorities and higher officials. Despite this, the defendants
continued to threaten dispossession.
4. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. However, during
its pendency, the defendants allegedly fabricated and forged documents,
including an agreement to sell, GPA, possession letter, and sale deed
dated 2008, by falsely projecting defendant No. 3 as the son of Smt.
Kulwant Kaur and claiming ownership of the property. These documents
were allegedly created after obtaining copies of the plaintiff’s documents
from the police. The defendants also relied upon a forged death certificate
of Smt. Kulwant Kaur, which official records later revealed to be false.
5. Due to these new developments, the plaintiff withdrew the earlier
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 3 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:11:05
+0530
injunction suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The present suit has been
filed seeking cancellation of the forged documents, declaration of the
plaintiff’s exclusive ownership and possession, and permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the property. The plaintiff
asserts that she has remained in lawful possession throughout, that the
defendants’ claims are based entirely on fabricated documents, and that
the cause of action is continuing. The plaintiff further submits that the
Court has territorial jurisdiction, the suit is within limitation, proper Court
fees have been paid, and prays for cancellation of the impugned
documents, declaration of title, permanent injunction, and initiation of
proceedings for prosecution of the defendants for producing forged
documents.
Written Statement of defendant no. 1, 2 and 3
6. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have denied all allegations made in the
plaint except those specifically admitted and contend that the suit is false,
vexatious, malicious, and liable to be dismissed for want of cause of
action. They asserted that the plaintiff has never been in possession of the
suit property and is attempting to trespass upon it on the basis of forged
and fabricated documents allegedly prepared in collusion with antisocial
elements and local police officials. The defendants argue that the plaintiff
has no locus standi, right, title, or interest in the property and that all
documents relied upon by her are forged, unstamped, unregistered, and
invalid under the Indian Registration Act, the Indian Stamp Act, and the
Transfer of Property Act.
7. The defendants state that Smt. Kulwant Kaur was the original
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 4 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:11:09
+0530
owner of the property, having purchased it in 1973, and that she died on
15 December 1978. Therefore, any documents purportedly executed by or
on her behalf in 1981 or thereafter are inherently void. They rely on an
alleged death certificate to support this claim. According to them, after
her death, her son, defendant No. 3, remained in possession and later
lawfully sold the property to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through a registered
sale deed executed in July 2008 after issuing public notices inviting
objections. They maintain that they are the lawful owners in possession
and that any construction undertaken by them was unlawfully obstructed
by the plaintiff.
8. On merits, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 admitted only the original
purchase of the property by Smt. Kulwant Kaur in 1973 and denied all
subsequent transactions alleged by the plaintiff, including purported sales
to Krishna Verma, Khazan Singh, and ultimately to the plaintiff. They
contended that these transactions were based on blank signed papers or
forged documents created after the death of Smt. Kulwant Kaur and were
never lawfully executed or registered. They denied that the plaintiff
carried out any construction or repairs and alleged that the property
remained vacant for years under the supervision of local representatives
on behalf of defendant No. 3 until its sale. They further stated that police
inquiries have found the plaintiff’s documents to be forged and that a
criminal complaint has been lodged against her. They submitted that the
earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was withdrawn due to their objections
and that the present suit has been filed with mala fide intent to grab the
property or extract money. They also contended that the suit is notCiv DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 5 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:11:13 +0530
properly valued and that requisite Court fees have not been paid, and
therefore pray for dismissal of the suit.
9. Defendant No. 3 has similarly denied all allegations except those
specifically admitted and contended that the suit is false, malicious, and
liable to be dismissed in limine for lack of cause of action. He asserts that
the plaintiff has never been in possession of the property and has
unnecessarily impleaded him to harass and humiliate him. He denied that
any agreement to sell or power of attorney was executed by Late Smt.
Kulwant Kaur in favour of Khazan Singh and alleged that Khazan Singh
colluded with the plaintiff to forge documents after her death on 15
December 1978. Since the plaintiff claims title through documents
allegedly executed in 1981, he contended that such documents are
inherently forged and fabricated.
10. Defendant No. 3 further asserted that the plaintiff has no right, title,
or interest in the property and that all ownership documents relied upon
by her contain forged signatures of Late Smt. Kulwant Kaur. He stated
that genuine original documents bearing her authentic signatures have
been placed on record to demonstrate forgery. He maintained that after
Smt. Kulwant Kaur’s death, her legal heirs remained in possession until
the property was lawfully sold to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through a
registered sale deed executed on 9 July 2008 at the Sub-Registrar,
Janakpuri, following public notices inviting objections. He denied the
plaintiff’s claims regarding possession, construction, threats, and police
complaints, and contended that the property remained vacant and was
looked after by a local RWA representative on behalf of the legal heirs.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 6 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:11:17
+0530
11. Defendant No. 3 also submitted that the earlier suit filed by the
plaintiff was withdrawn due to objections, that the present suit discloses
no cause of action, that it is not properly valued, and that requisite Court
fees have not been paid. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the
suit and rejection of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
Replications filed by the plaintiff to the Written Statements of Defendant
Nos. 1, 2, and 3
12. In her replication to the written statements of Defendant Nos. 1 and
2, the plaintiff has raised preliminary objections that their written
statement is not legally valid as it lacked proper verification, is
unsupported by a legally compliant affidavit, and was filed beyond the
prescribed period without any application for condonation of delay. She
contended that these defects are deliberate and intended to mislead the
Court and avoid legal consequences. The replication has been filed
without prejudice to her rights and contentions.
13. On merits, the plaintiff categorically denied all allegations made by
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and has asserted that the suit discloses a clear and
continuing cause of action. She maintains that she has always been in
lawful possession of the suit property and denied any attempt to trespass
or collusion with antisocial elements or police officials. She refuted all
allegations of forgery, fabrication, or impersonation concerning Smt.
Kulwant Kaur and specifically disputed the alleged date of death relied
upon by the defendants, asserting that the death certificate produced by
them is forged and fabricated. According to the plaintiff, her title
documents are genuine and lawfully executed, whereas the documents
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 7 of 53
SUSHEEL Digitally
by SUSHEEL
signed
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:11:21 +0530
relied upon by the defendants are fabricated in an attempt to grab the
property.
14. The plaintiff reiterated the factual narrative set out in the plaint,
asserting that the property was lawfully sold by Smt. Kulwant Kaur
through valid intermediate transactions culminating in her ownership and
possession. She denied that defendant No. 3 or defendant Nos. 1 and 2
were ever in lawful possession or that any valid sale was executed in their
favour. She further denied that the property remained vacant or was
looked after by any local representative on behalf of the defendants. All
allegations regarding inconsistent pleadings, police enquiries, public
notices, lawful construction by the defendants, improper valuation, non-
payment of Court fees, absence of cause of action, and suppression of
material facts have been specifically denied.
15. In her replication to the written statement of defendant No. 3, the
plaintiff has similarly objected that the written statement is invalid due to
improper verification, absence of a legally compliant affidavit, and
delayed filing without condonation. She asserted that these defects are
deliberate and that her replication is filed without prejudice to her rights.
16. The plaintiff denied all allegations made by defendant No. 3 and
maintained that the suit discloses a valid and subsisting cause of action.
She affirmed that Smt. Kulwant Kaur executed valid documents,
including an agreement to sell and power of attorney, in favour of Shri
Khazan Singh, and that she derived lawful title and possession through
those transactions. She denied any suppression of facts, lack of locus
standi, mala fide intent, or reliance on forged documents. She specifically
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 8 of 53
Digitally
signed by
SUSHEEL SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:11:25
+0530
disputed the alleged death of Smt. Kulwant Kaur on 15.12.1978 and
asserted that the records relied upon by the defendants are fabricated.
17. The plaintiff reiterated that her ownership documents are genuine
and validly executed and denied that any signatures were obtained on
blank papers or that any documents were forged. She refutes claims that
the property remained vacant or that defendant No. 3 or any RWA
representative was authorised to manage it. She further denied the
validity of the alleged sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2,
calling them fabricated and sham documents. Allegations regarding
police enquiries, public notices, collusion, improper valuation, and lack
of jurisdiction were also denied. The plaintiff prayed that the objections
and defences raised by the defendants be rejected and that the suit be
decreed in her favour as prayed.
Issues :-
18. From the pleadings of the parties and material on record, following
issues were framed :-
Issue no. 1 Whether the written statement and affidavit in support thereof
as filed by the defendant can be looked into? OPP
Issue no. 2 Whether the defendant no. 3 sold the subject property to
defendant no. 1 and 2 being competent and capable and whether
defendant no. 1 and 2 are lawful owners of the subject property? OP
Parties
Issue no. 3 Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of
Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
Issue no. 4 Whether late Smt. Kulwant Kaur was known to Shri KhazanCiv DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 9 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:11:29 +0530
Singh and whether documents pertaining to the subject property as filed
by the plaintiff on record are forged and fabricated documents? OPD
Issue no. 5 Whether Smt. Kulwant Kaur died on 15.12.1978 as alleged?
OPD
Issue no. 6 Whether the plaintiff was ever and now in possession of the
suit property? OP Parties
Issue no. 7 Whether the suit property has been transferred in
contravention of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act? OPD
Issue no. 8 Whether the documents pertaining to the suit property as filed
by the plaintiff are valid documents and whether the suit is maintainable
in view of provisions of Indian Registration Act? OPD
Issue no. 9 Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of
Indian Stamp Act? OPD
Issue no. 10 Relief.
Plaintiff Evidence:-
PW1/ Smt. Veena Rani
19. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1.
On 16.02.2010, PW1 tender her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A
and relied upon Ex. PW1/1 sale deed dated 09.02.1973 executed by
Chander Bal and Nand Kishore, Ramesh Chand and Beg Raj in favour of
Smt. Kulwant Kaur, General Power of Attorney, Agreement to sell,
registered receipt executed by Smt. Kulawant Kaur in favour of Smt.
Krishna Verma Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/4, General Power of Attorney
dated 01.05.1981, Agreement to Sell dated 01.06.1981, registered receipt
dated 01.06.1981 executed by Smt. Kulwant Kaur in favour of Shri
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 10 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:11:33
+0530
Khazan Singh Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/7, General Power of Attorney,
Agreement to Sell, affidavit and receipt executed by Smt. Krishna Verma
in favour of Shri Khazan Singh Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/11, Will,
irrevocable GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt executed by Shri
Kazan Singh in favour Shri Veena Rani dated 31.01.1992 Ex. PW1/12 to
Ex. PW1/16, complaint dated 14.05.2008 to DCP West by Smt. Veena
Rani Ex. PW1/17, speed post receipt regarding the above complaint Ex.
PW1/18 to Ex. PW1/26, suit for permanent injunction filed by Smt.
Veena Rani before Ld. Civil Judge Ex. PW1/27, application under Order
39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim relief filed alongwith the suit
for permanent injunction by Smt. Veena Rani Ex. PW1/28, defendant no.
3 executed General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, possession
letter all dated 22.04.2008 claiming himself to be the alleged son of late
Smt. Kulwant Kaur and thereafter defendant no. 3 executed sale deed
dated 09.07.2008 in favour of defendant no. 1 Ex. PW1/29 to Ex.
PW1/32, the application under Order 23 CPC in the earlier suit of
permanent injunction filed by Smt. Veena Rani Ex. PW1/33, her
statement regarding withdrawal of the suit Ex. PW1/34 and order dated
18.10.2008 passed regarding withdrawal of suit on her statement Ex.
PW1/35, visiting card of defendant no. 1 showing him as property dealer
and carrying on business activities of property under the name and style
of Chaudhary Properties Ex. PW1/36, certificate alongwith English
translation to the effect that inquiries were made by Smt. Veena Rani
regarding alleged death certificate of Smt. Kulwant Kaur from the office
of Registrar of Birth and Death showing that there is no entry of death of
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 11 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:11:37 +0530
Smt. Kulwant Kaur as alleged Ex. PW1/37, details of connection at the
suit property from the record of BSES in the name of Khazan Singh Ex.
PW1/38, bills raised by BSES on Mr. Khazan Singh Ex. PW1/39,
photographs showing business activities of property dealing being carried
out by defendant no. 1 Ex. PW1/40 to Ex. PW1/42, photographs of front
and rear portion of the status of suit property as on 18.11.2008 Ex.
PW1/43 to Ex. PW1/46, bills dated 18.11.2008 from the photographer of
M/s Photo Plaza Ex. PW1/47, notice issued by advocate of plaintiff
dated 08.12.2008 as defendant started raising construction on boundary
wall on the front side of the suit property Ex. PW1/48 and its speed post
receipts Ex. PW1/49 to Ex. PW1/51, complaint lodged by plaintiff with
PS Bindapur alongwith English Translation regarding unauthorized
construction by defendant Ex. PW1/52, photographs taken on 04.12.2008
regarding construction raised by defendant on part of boundary wall of
front side of the suit property Ex. PW1/53 to Ex. PW1/55, bill dated
04.12.2008 by photographer of M/s Neha Studio Ex. PW1/56, note dated
13.01.2009 by official of BSES not to install any meter at the suit
property Ex. PW1/57, notice dated 14.01.2009 by plaintiff through her
advocate to BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd as well as Shri Arun Kumar not to
install meter at the suit property being a disputed case Ex. PW1/58.
20. In her cross-examination, PW1 stated that she is a graduate, an
Indian citizen, and had shifted to the UAE in 1987, though she visited
Delhi occasionally and stayed at her residence in Vishnu Garden. She
deposed that before purchasing the suit property, she visited it 5-6 days
prior to purchase, examined the chain of title documents of the previousCiv DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 12 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:11:43 +0530
owner, and got them verified from the Sub-Registrar, including registered
cash receipts, and that she came to know about the sale through a local
property dealer who later died.
21. The witness consistently stated that she never met Smt. Kulwant
Kaur, Krishna Verma, or their family members, and that she has no
personal knowledge of the execution of documents by Kulwant Kaur in
favour of Krishna Verma or Khajan Singh, except what is reflected from
the documents received as chain documents. She admitted that several
documents in the chain were undated or inconsistently dated, that she
could not identify signatures of previous owners or witnesses, and that
she was not personally present at the time when those earlier documents
were executed.
22. She denied all suggestions that the documents in question were
forged or fabricated, or that Smt. Kulwant Kaur had died prior to the
execution of the documents. She maintained that the documents were
genuine and denied allegations of collusion with Khajan Singh or
fabrication of ownership documents. She further stated that she did not
know whether the documents were registered or properly stamped and
lacked personal knowledge regarding consideration paid in earlier
transactions.
23. PW1 deposed that she purchased the suit property through Khajan
Singh, arranged the consideration in India through her father and
relatives, made payment by demand draft, and took physical possession
of the suit property. She claimed that at the time of purchase, the property
was undivided, had two rooms, and that she later repaired boundary wallsCiv DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 13 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:11:47 +0530
after one room collapsed. She admitted that she has no documentary
proof of construction or repairs.
24. She stated that she was present at the time of execution of
documents in her favour along with her uncle, though she could not recall
the exact place of execution, witnesses, or notary details due to lapse of
time. She admitted that some documents did not bear her signature and
that she could produce proof showing her presence in India at the time of
purchase.
25. PW1 denied allegations that she never received possession,
trespassed upon the suit property, or filed false complaints. She asserted
that she was informed by a third person that the boundary wall was being
demolished, after which she visited the property and contacted the police.
She denied knowledge of defendants prior to the dispute and refuted
claims that defendants lawfully purchased the property from defendant
No.3.
26. She admitted that defendant No.3 is the son of Kulwant Kaur but
asserted that he is not the sole legal heir and that there are several other
legal heirs, as reflected in a voter list filed later in the proceedings. She
denied that the voter list or death certificate relied upon by her are
fabricated and denied all allegations of false deposition.
27. PW1 maintained that she lawfully purchased the suit property,
received possession, and has been the rightful owner, while consistently
stating that her knowledge of earlier transactions is limited solely to the
documents forming the chain of title.
PW2/Shri Amrik Singh/ Husband of plaintiff Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 14 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:51 +0530
28. On 23.09.2014, PW2 tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
PW2/A and relied upon all the documents which were exhibited through
PW1.
29. During cross examination, PW2 stated that he is a 10th class pass
and has limited knowledge of English. His affidavit was drafted by his
Counsel in India and sent to him in the UAE, where it was read over to
him by someone who knew English and also by his lawyer before he
signed it at the Indian Embassy in the UAE. He has been continuously
residing in the UAE since 1976 and is an Indian citizen holding an Indian
passport. He frequently visits India but cannot state the exact duration of
his stay each year.
30. He originally belonged to Jalandhar, Punjab, and had not purchased
any property prior to the suit property, except one property in Delhi in
1994. He did not personally meet Kulwant Kaur at any time and came to
know about the previous owners only through the chain of documents
handed over to his wife. He was not present at the time of execution of
documents Ex. PW-1/2 to Ex. PW-1/4 and had no personal knowledge of
their execution. He could not identify the signatures of Krishna Verma
and admitted that some documents did not bear her signatures. However,
he denied that the documents were forged, fabricated, or ante-dated.
31. He stated that the documents were given by his wife’s maternal
uncle (mausa), Kartar Singh, who resided at Shyam Nagar, Delhi, though
he could not tell the complete address. He denied the suggestion that
Kulwant Kaur had died before execution of the documents and denied
that Krishna Verma was fictitious. He also denied that Khajan Singh and
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 15 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:11:55
+0530
Krishna Verma never became owners of the suit property.
32. PW2 admitted that he was not present during the execution of
deeds between Kulwant Kaur, Krishna Verma, and Khajan Singh and had
no personal knowledge of those transactions. He stated that the suit
property measuring 250 square yards was purchased as a single undivided
plot. He acknowledged that the plots of 50 sq. yards and 200 sq. yards
bore the same plot number but denied any forgery.
33. He stated that he met Khajan Singh 5-6 days before execution of
documents Ex. PW-1/12 to Ex. PW-1/16 but did not know his address.
The transaction was arranged through a property dealer in the presence of
his wife’s mausa. The consideration amount was paid by bank draft
prepared against cash, which was arranged partly by his wife’s parents
and partly from her savings. He admitted that his wife did not have a
bank account at that time.
34. He explained that they used to bring cash Dirhams from Dubai and
exchanged them in India, sometimes through private exchange centers,
and denied that bringing cash from Dubai was illegal. He stated that the
documents were executed at the Authority Building, Janakpuri, and
denied that there was no Sub-Registrar office there at the relevant time.
He admitted that neither he nor his wife produced Indian identity
documents other than passports and that they were sitting outside while
the mausa went inside the office.
35. He stated that after purchasing the property, they kept it under lock
and key and visited it periodically. There was an electricity connection in
the name of Khajan Singh, which was later disconnected due to non-
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 16 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:11:59 +0530
payment. He denied that possession was never handed over to them. In
May 2008, his wife received information that someone was attempting to
break the boundary wall, after which police complaints were made,
though no FIR was registered.
36. He denied that defendants had validly purchased the property or
that defendant no. 3, as legal heir of Kulwant Kaur, was entitled to it. He
denied that their documents were forged or that voter lists and certificates
filed by his wife were fabricated. He stated that police and their Counsel
informed them that defendants’ documents were forged.
37. He admitted that he could read English and relied on others to read
documents to him. He stated that they relied entirely on the advice of his
wife’s mausa and did not conduct independent legal verification of the
documents or consult an advocate. He admitted that the agreement to sell
was not registered and that sale deeds were not executed on legal advice.
He denied all suggestions that he was deposing falsely, concealing facts,
or that neither he nor his wife were ever in possession of the suit property.
He maintained that all documents filed by them are genuine and that his
wife is the lawful owner of the suit property.
PW3/ HC Anoop Singh
38. PW3 stated that the complaint dated 14.05.2008 allegedly made by
Veena Rani is not available because it has been destroyed. The official
document evidencing the destruction of the said record has been
exhibited as Ex. PW-3/1.
PW4/ Shri Ravinder Kumar, LDC from office of Sub Registrar-II, Basai
Darapur, Delhi.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 17 of 53 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: DAGAR 2026.01.31 17:12:03 +0530
39. PW4 proved the original records relating to two registered receipts
dated 01.06.1981 showing payment of consideration by Khajan Singh and
Krishna Verma to Kulwant Kaur, bearing registration numbers 7825 and
7824 respectively, recorded in Additional Book No. IV, Volume 706. He
further produced the original record of the Will dated 31.01.1992
executed by Khajan Singh bearing registration number 5054. The
certified copies of these documents were already exhibited as Ex.
PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/4, and Ex. PW-1/12.
40. PW-5, Shri Satnarayan Sharma, Assistant Personal Officer, BSES
Rajdhani Power Ltd., proved the official record relating to an electricity
connection bearing K. No. 2650W5180015 and CRN No. 2650043867,
which stands in the name of Khajan Singh and pertains to the suit
property. He also produced the electricity bill dated 18.08.2015 in the
name of Khajan Singh, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-5/1.
41. PW5 stated that the electricity connection at the suit property was
originally installed in the name of Krishna Verma on 01.04.1983, was
transferred to the name of Khajan Singh on 01.04.1985, and was
permanently disconnected on 30.04.2004. During cross-examination, he
produced document Ex. PW-5/D1 showing electricity consumption
details. As per record, the premises was found locked from 25.04.1998,
and no electricity consumption was recorded from that date up to
09.06.2003. PW5 further stated that no records are available after
22.10.2016.
PW5/Shri Rajesh Kwatra
42. The witness stated that he runs a photo studio named “Photo Plaza”
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 18 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:12:07
+0530
at A-15, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, and that the suit property is situated
about ten steps away from his shop. He stated that the plaintiff
approached him to take photographs, and accordingly he took
photographs Ex. PW-1/43, Ex. PW-1/44, Ex. PW-1/45, and Ex. PW-1/46
on 18.11.2008 using a digital camera, due to which no negatives are
available.
43. During cross-examination, the witness stated that he could identify
the location of the photographs based on a partially visible board in
photograph Ex. PW-1/45 showing one and a half alphabet, which he
identified as part of the name “Adarsh Public School,” as the property is
very close to his shop and he visited the area daily. He stated that he
could identify the lady in the photographs as the same person who had
engaged him to take the photographs, though he could not explain the
basis of such identification and admitted that he did not ask her name at
the time.
44. He stated that he had issued a bill for the photographs, though he
did not remember the amount charged. When shown the bill dated
18.11.2008, he admitted that Ex. PW-1/47 was issued by him in the name
of Smt. Veena Rani. He admitted that photographs Ex. PW-1/40, Ex.
PW-1/41, and Ex. PW-1/42 were not taken by him. He denied the
suggestion that he had been tutored to depose falsely.
45. In further cross-examination by Counsel for defendants nos. 1 and
3, the witness admitted that he had not placed any document on record to
show that he was running a photography shop, except for the bill Ex.
PW-1/47.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 19 of 53 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date: 2026.01.31 DAGAR 17:12:11 +0530
PW6/Shri Pradeep Kumar, Clerk from District Election Office,
Ludhiana(Mini Secretariat), Punjab.
46. PW6 produced the official records of the voter lists of the Ludhiana
Assembly Constituency for the years 1993 and 1998. He stated that in the
voter list of the year 1993, the names of Randhir Singh and Rajender
Kaur appeared at serial numbers 662 and 663 on page 5 of the voter list
register, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-6/1 with the relevant entries
marked at point A. He further stated that in the voter list of the year 1998,
the names of Amarpal and Bhupender Kaur appeared at serial numbers
394 and 395 on page 9 of the voter list register, which was exhibited as
Ex. PW-6/2 with the relevant entries marked at point B.
47. During cross-examination by Counsel for defendants nos. 1 and 3,
PW6 admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the voter lists
of the Ludhiana Assembly Constituency and also had no personal
knowledge about the present case.
48. PW7/ Sh. Sarwan Singh, Health Worker, Department of Health,
Municipal Corporation of Haryana, Ludhiana produced the original
register containing entry no. 18415, on the basis of which a non-traceable
certificate was issued. He stated that the photocopy of the relevant entry
from point A to A was exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A (OSR). He further stated
that the certificate bearing no. 18415, Ex. PW-7/B, had been issued by the
Registrar of his office, and he identified the Registrar’s signature
appearing at point A.
49. During cross-examination, PW7 admitted that in entry no. 18415,
the name of the applicant is not Kulwant Kaur but Pushkaran, as written
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 20 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:12:15
+0530
in Punjabi. He further explained that entry no. 18415 pertains to an
application for issuance of a No Objection Certificate, which is issued
when no entry exists in the Birth and Death Register and a fresh entry is
required to be made.
50. PW7 specifically stated that entry no. 18415 relates to Pushkar
Singh and does not pertain to the death of Kulwant Kaur. He further
stated that he was not concerned with document Mark A and therefore
could not comment upon it.
Defendant Evidence:-
D1W1/ Shri Nasib Singh
51. In order to prove their case, the defendant no. 1 Shri Nasib Singh
examined himself as D1W1. On 10.07.2024, D1W1 tender his evidence
by way of affidavit Ex. D1W1/A and relied upon registered sale deed
dated 09.07.2008 executed by defendant no. 3 Shri Satinder Bir Singh in
favour of defendant no. 1 Ex. DW1/1, general power of attorney,
agreement to sell, possession letter and receipt all dated 22.04.2008
executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 Ex. DW1/2 to
Ex. DW1/5, sale deed dated 09.02.1973 executed by Chander Bal and
Nand Kishore, Ramesh Chand and Beg Raj in favour of Smt. Kulwant
Kaur already Ex. PW1/1, death certificate of Kulwant Kaur dated
15.12.1978 Ex. DW1/7 leaving behind defendant no. 3 and her husband
who died in the year 1991, copy of paper cutting of the public notice in
newspaper dated 11.05.2008 got published by defendant no. 1 at the
advise of defendant no. 2 inviting objections as the suit property was
lying vacant for many years Ex. DW1/8, copy of police complaint dated
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 21 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:12:19 +0530
27.08.2008 against the plaintiff Ex. DW1/9, the status report filed by the
police regarding the complaint by the plaintiff in the Hon’ble High Court
Ex.DW1/11A and Ex.DW1/11B and the CFSL report Ex.DW1/12
(inadvertently mentioned as Ex. DW3/2 in the affidavit of defendant no.
1)
52. During cross examination, D1W1 stated that he is a property dealer
by profession and has been engaged in this business for the last 24-25
years. He is 57 years old, 10th class pass, and has been residing in Om
Vihar for the last 25-26 years. He stated that he cannot understand
English well and did not fully understand the contents of his affidavit on
his own, which he signed in his lawyer’s chamber on the advice of his
advocate. He does not remember the exact date of signing or who was
present at that time.
53. He stated that he was not acquainted with Kulwant Kaur and never
met her, but he knew her son Satender Bir Singh, whom he first met in
the year 2008 through Manjeet Singh, defendant no. 2, and also through
Attar Singh, the president of the RWA. He stated that Satender Bir Singh
told him that he was the only legal heir of Kulwant Kaur and showed him
a death certificate indicating that she had died in 1978, which he believed.
He denied having any knowledge that Satender Bir Singh had any
siblings and denied any conspiracy to falsely project him as the sole legal
heir.
54. D1W1 stated that before entering into the transaction, he visited the
suit property twice and found only boundary walls at the site with no
construction. He admitted that statements in his affidavit regarding
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 22 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:12:23
+0530
construction, possession, and ownership of the suit property were not
based on his personal knowledge but were conveyed to him by Satender
Bir Singh and Attar Singh. He further admitted that he never verified the
title documents, chain documents, electricity connection, or water
connection before purchasing the property.
55. He admitted that the agreement to sell dated 22.04.2008 was
executed only in his favour by defendant no. 3 and not in favour of
defendant no. 2. He explained that the sale deed dated 09.07.2008 was
executed in favour of both himself and defendant no. 2 because he was
short of funds and therefore made Manjeet Singh his partner, though no
fresh documentation was executed to amend the agreement to sell. He
admitted that certain documents, including the possession letter and
receipts, did not bear the signatures of any witnesses and denied
allegations that these documents were forged or fabricated.
56. D1W1 admitted that he does not remember the source of cash
payment of Rs. 20 lakhs allegedly paid to defendant no. 3 and could not
state whether the said amount was declared in his income tax returns,
though he undertook to produce the return for the year 2008. He admitted
that there was a discrepancy between the consideration amount
mentioned in the receipt and the sale deed and attributed the difference to
circle rate valuation.
57. He stated that he did not remember in whose name the electricity
connection at the suit property existed either before or after the sale and
admitted that he never applied for an electricity connection due to the
pending litigation. He also admitted that he did not take steps to verify the
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 23 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:12:29
+0530
registered receipts relied upon by the plaintiff and never made any
complaint to the registrar or sub-registrar regarding those documents.
58. He denied allegations that Kulwant Kaur had sold the suit property
to Khazan Singh and Krishna Verma or that Khazan Singh subsequently
transferred the property to the plaintiff. He denied that the plaintiff was
ever in possession of the suit property and denied that he, along with
defendants nos. 2 and 3 and Attar Singh, conspired to usurp the suit
property by creating forged documents. He further denied that the death
certificate of Kulwant Kaur was fabricated or that police reports were
prepared under any influence or collusion.
59. D1W1 admitted that he never filed any civil suit seeking
declaration that the plaintiff’s documents were forged or invalid. He also
admitted that he did not possess the original chain documents of the suit
property and stated that defendant no. 3 had lodged an NCR regarding
their loss, though he did not remember the details. He ultimately denied
the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
D2W1/Shri Manjit Singh
60. In order to prove their case, the defendant no. 2 examined himself
as D2W1. On 31.03.2023, the D2W1 tender his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. D2W1/A and relied upon the copy of the death certificate of
late Mrs. Kulawant Kaur Mark D2W1, copy of sale deed executed by
defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1, agreement to sell, power of
attorney and receipt Mark D2W2, copy of public notice as published in
Hindi and English newspaper on 11.05.2008 inviting objections as the
suit property was lying vacant Mark D2W3, copy of complaint to the
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 24 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:12:34
+0530
police against the plaintiff Mark D2W4.
61. During cross examination, D2W1 stated that he can read and
understand English to some extent and is well conversant with the
contents of his affidavit. He stated that he has known defendant no. 1
since 2007-2008 and that late Ms. Kulwant Kaur was his cousin bua,
whom he had known since birth. He deposed that, to his knowledge,
Kulwant Kaur had only one son, Satender Bir Singh, and that she resided
in Ludhiana, Punjab. He stated that he visited her house only once at the
time of Satender Bir Singh’s marriage and that Kulwant Kaur passed
away in Ludhiana. He denied the suggestion that the death certificate
produced is false or fabricated.
62. He denied that he never purchased the suit property from defendant
no. 3 and denied any collusion with defendants nos. 1 and 3 to grab the
suit property from the plaintiff. He admitted that he had no personal
knowledge of Kulwant Kaur having purchased the suit property in 1973
and stated that he came to know of this only through documents and his
familial relationship. He denied that defendant no. 3 was never in
possession of the suit property and denied that the plaintiff had purchased
the property from Khajan Singh or remained in possession thereafter.
63. D2W1 denied any attempt to trespass upon the suit property along
with defendant no. 1 and asserted that the property was already in their
possession and that construction work was being carried out there. He
denied that Kulwant Kaur had sold the property in parts to Krishna Verma
and Khajan Singh or that Khajan Singh later became the sole owner. He
stated that he does not know in whose name the electricity connection
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 25 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:12:38
+0530
stood in 2008 and denied knowledge of the relationship between Kulwant
Kaur and Khajan Singh, though he admitted stating in his affidavit that
Khajan Singh was known to her.
64. He denied that Khajan Singh constructed boundary walls or rooms
at the suit property and denied that the plaintiff carried out any repairs
after the alleged purchase. He stated that he paid the entire consideration
amount in cash prior to 01.05.2008 but could not remember the exact
amount paid for his share. He stated that a public notice regarding the
property was published in Delhi and denied that defendant no. 3 never
executed a sale deed in his favour and in favour of defendant no. 1.
65. He further stated that he has not filed any complaint in Court
against the plaintiff for alleged fabrication of documents but claimed that
a police complaint was filed, an investigation was conducted, and a report
was submitted in Court holding the plaintiff’s documents to be false. He
denied the suggestion that no such complaint or police finding exists and
denied that he is deposing falsely.
66. D2W2, Shri Devender Kumar, Junior Assistant from the office of
Sub-Registrar-II, Basai Darapur, Delhi, proved the certified copy of the
sale deed dated 09.07.2008 executed by Shri Satender Vir Singh in favour
of defendant no.1 bearing registration no. 17403, Book No. 1, Volume
No. 16256, pages 25 to 34 Ex. D2W2/1. In cross-examination, he stated
that he could say whether verification of ownership or legal heirs of the
property is required before registration of a sale deed.
D2W3/Shri K.P. Giri, PR Exective Rastriya Sahara Noida, UP
67. D2W3 proved the certified copy of page no. 4 of the Rashtriya
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 26 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:13:05
+0530
Sahara newspaper dated 11.05.2008, marked at point “X”, which was
exhibited as Ex. D2W3/1. He stated that he did not bring any separate
authority letter to depose before the Court and appeared pursuant to the
Court summons addressed to him for producing the certified copy of the
relevant document. He admitted that the advertisement marked at point
“X” is a classified advertisement and that no factual verification of the
contents of advertisements is carried out by the newspaper before
publication. He further stated that he himself certified Ex. D2W3/1.
D2W4/ Head Constable Vishal Yadav, 1659 DW, PS Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi
68. D2W4 stated that the summoned record had already been destroyed
in terms of office order no. 14561-646/HAR/DWD dated 25.07.2022,
duly signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dwarka District,
New Delhi, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ex. D2W4/1
wherein the summoned record is mentioned at serial no. 21 at point “Y”.
He also stated that he could not say after how many years old records are
destroyed in his office.
D2W5/Sh. Akash Garg, Clerk, Birth and Death, Municipal Corporation
Ludhiana, Punjab.
69. D2W5 proved the entry of the death of Kulwant Kaur in the
register of the Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana, Punjab Ex. D2W5/1.
He further stated that the register does not contain information about the
document on the basis of which the entry was made, but the name and
address of the person who informed about the death is mentioned in
column no. 17, although he is unable to read the name or address of the
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 27 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:13:09 +0530
informant as the handwriting is unclear; however, he can read, write, and
speak Punjabi. He added that nowadays, proof of death such as a
cremation slip, ID proof of the deceased, or hospital record is provided by
the informant at the time of registration, but he cannot say what practice
was adopted at the time of Kulwant Kaur’s death and whether verification
was done. When asked, he stated that he could tell the relationship of the
informant, as only the signature is present, and he could read the
signatory’s name. He denied the suggestion that the entry no. 26 in the
death register is not authentic or conclusive proof of the date of death of
Kulwant Kaur, but he also could say whether the entry was done after
verification of death, as he was not present at that time and recently had
joined the office.
Final arguments
70. I have heard Shri Manmohan Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and
Shri Sandeep Jain, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1 and 2 and perused the
record. Both parties filed written synopsis of their arguments.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following case laws
Asha M. Jain v. The Canara Bank and Ors 2002 (61) DRJ 101 (DB),
Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director v. State
of Haryana and another (2012) 1 SCC 656, Ashok Atree v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and anr RFA No. 116/2019 decided on 08.02.2019
of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Rama Gowda (D) by Lrs. v. M.
Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and anr. Appeal (civil) 7662 of 1997
decided on 15.12.2003 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in support
of his arguments
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 28 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:13:13 +0530
Written synopsis of plaintiff
71. The plaintiff’s case is that the disputed property was lawfully
acquired through a continuous and valid chain of transactions beginning
with the original owners, who sold the property to Smt. Kulwant Kaur in
1973, followed by her sale of portions to Smt. Krishna Verma and Sh.
Khazan Singh in 1981, culminating in Khazan Singh becoming the sole
owner after purchasing Krishna Verma’s share in 1982 and remaining in
physical possession as evidenced by an electricity connection. The
plaintiff, an NRI, purchased the entire property from Khazan Singh in
1992 through GPA, Will, and registered receipts, took possession, and
remained undisputedly in control until 2008, when the defendants
allegedly trespassed and threatened her, prompting litigation. The
defendants contest the plaintiff’s title by alleging that Smt. Kulwant Kaur
had died in 1978 and that all documents relied upon by the plaintiff are
forged, improperly stamped, and fabricated in collusion with Khazan
Singh, while claiming that Defendant No. 3 was the sole legal heir who
validly sold the property to Defendants No. 1 and 2 in 2008. The court
framed issues relating to the validity of pleadings, competency of
Defendant No. 3 to transfer title, valuation and maintainability of the suit,
genuineness of the plaintiff’s documents, the true date of death of Smt.
Kulwant Kaur, possession of the property, and alleged violations of the
Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, and Stamp Act. The plaintiff
relied on extensive documentary and oral evidence, including registered
receipts, electricity records, complaints to authorities, voter lists, and
official witnesses, to establish lawful ownership and possession and to
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 29 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:13:17
+0530
discredit the defendants’ claim of sole heirship and alleged death of Smt.
Kulwant Kaur in 1978. The evidence, including admissions by
defendants’ witnesses, inconsistencies in their testimony, voter list
records showing multiple heirs, and the suspicious timing of the
defendants’ 2008 documents after the filing of the first suit, supports the
plaintiff’s case that her title and possession are genuine and that the
defendants’ documents were fabricated to defeat her lawful rights.
Written synopsis of defendants
72. The case concerns a property originally purchased by Kulwant
Kaur through a registered sale deed dated 09 February 1973. The
plaintiff, Veena Rani, claims ownership on the basis of unregistered
documents executed in 1992 by Khazan Singh, who himself allegedly
relied on unregistered documents said to have been executed by Kulwant
Kaur and Krishna Verma in 1981-1982. The plaintiff failed to explain
why no registered sale deed was executed in her favour, failed to prove
her presence in India at the time of execution of the documents, and did
not produce any documentary proof to establish the actual date of death
of Kulwant Kaur, while her attempt to introduce a plea of adverse
possession was dismissed by the High Court in January 2013.
73. The defendants assert lawful ownership on the basis of a registered
sale deed executed in their favour by Defendant No. 3, the legal heir of
Kulwant Kaur, who is shown by official records to have died on 15
December 1978, well before the alleged transactions relied upon by the
plaintiff. The defendants’ case is supported by a death certificate, a police
status report submitted to the High Court, and the opinion of the Central
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 30 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:13:21
+0530
Forensic Science Laboratory, which concluded that the signatures of
Kulwant Kaur on the plaintiff’s documents were forged and that the
documents were fabricated.
74. All documents relied upon by the plaintiff and her predecessor are
unregistered, incomplete, and legally deficient, whereas the defendants
hold a valid registered sale deed, and the plaintiff’s reliance on an
electricity connection as proof of ownership is irrelevant given the
delayed transfer of the meter and lack of title documents. The plaintiff
also failed to substantiate her claim regarding the existence of other legal
heirs of Kulwant Kaur by producing any such witnesses. Consequently,
the evidence establishes that the plaintiff’s claim is based on forged and
fabricated documents and lacks legal validity, while the defendants’
ownership stands proved through registered instruments and official
records, rendering the plaintiff’s suit frivolous and liable to be dismissed.
Court observation and findings
75. The central controversy is whether the plaintiff acquired any valid
title/possessory right to Plot No. 4 (250 sq. yds., Village Hastsal) through
a chain of 1981-1992 “GPA/Agreement/Will/receipt” transactions from
late Smt. Kulwant Kaur via Krishna Verma and Khazan Singh, or whether
title remained with Kulwant Kaur’s heir (defendant no. 3), who then
validly sold to defendants no. 1 and 2 under a 2008 registered sale deed.
My issues wise findings are as under :
Issue no. 7 Whether the suit property has been transferred in
contravention of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act? OPD
76. The burden to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 31 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:13:25
+0530
plaintiffs claim ownership on the basis of a chain of transactions
comprising Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit, Will
and receipt allegedly executed in the year 1992, flowing from earlier
similar transactions of the year 1981.
77. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that
transfer of ownership in immovable property of value exceeding one
hundred rupees can be effected only by a registered instrument of sale. An
agreement to sell, by statutory definition itself, does not of itself create
any interest in or charge upon the property.
78. The legal position now stands conclusively settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana,
(2012) 1 SCC 656, wherein it was authoritatively held that so-called GPA
sales or SA/GPA/Will transactions do not convey title nor amount to
transfer of ownership. The Court clarified that such documents may at
best create contractual or limited agency rights enforceable inter se
between parties but cannot substitute a registered conveyance.
The said principle has been reiterated in Shiv Kumar v. Union of
India, (2019) 19 SCC 229, and subsequent decisions holding that
ownership in immovable property passes only through a registered sale
deed.
79. In the present case, admittedly no registered sale deed exists in
favour of the plaintiffs. The entire claim of ownership rests upon
unregistered contractual documents; and the executants of earlier
transactions were not proved in accordance with law.
80. Therefore, even if the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 32 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:13:30 +0530
assumed to have been executed, they cannot operate as a transfer of
ownership within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act. Accordingly, the alleged transfer relied upon by the plaintiffs is
legally insufficient to convey title. Issue No.7 is decided in favour of the
defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 8 Whether the documents pertaining to the suit property as filed
by the plaintiff are valid documents and whether the suit is maintainable
in view of provisions of Indian Registration Act? OPD
81. The defendants have contended that the documents forming the
plaintiffs’ chain are inadmissible for want of compulsory registration.
Section 17 of the Registration Act mandates compulsory
registration of instruments purporting to create, declare, assign or
extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property. Section 49
further provides that an unregistered document required to be registered
cannot affect immovable property nor be received as evidence of any
transaction affecting such property.
82. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has consistently followed the ratio
of Suraj Lamp and held that unregistered customary property documents
cannot confer ownership or be relied upon to claim declaration of title.
In the present case, the plaintiffs seek declaration of ownership solely on
the strength of unregistered GPA/Agreement documents. Such documents
cannot be treated as conveyances of title nor relied upon to establish
proprietary rights.
83. However, it is clarified that unregistered agreements may still be
looked into for limited collateral purposes, such as nature of possession or
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 33 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:13:34 +0530
contractual relationship, but not for proving transfer of ownership.
Accordingly, the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are legally
insufficient to establish title under the Registration Act. Issue No.8 is
decided in favour of the defendants.
Issue no. 9 Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of
Indian Stamp Act? OPD
84. The defendants have further challenged admissibility of the
plaintiffs’ documents on the ground of insufficient stamping.
Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act provide that an
instrument chargeable with duty cannot be admitted in evidence unless
duly stamped. The prohibition is statutory and operates irrespective of
consent of parties.
85. A perusal of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs shows that
several instruments affecting immovable property are either inadequately
stamped or unstamped. The plaintiffs did not take steps during trial for
impounding or payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty.
86. Consequently, such documents cannot be relied upon for proving
transfer of proprietary rights.
Nevertheless, it is clarified that the finding under this issue is
confined only to admissibility and evidentiary value of documents and
does not amount to a declaration validating the defendants’ title. Issue
No.9 is decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 5 Whether Smt. Kulwant Kaur died on 15.12.1978 as alleged?
OPD
87. The burden to prove this issue was upon the defendants, who
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 34 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:13:38
+0530
asserted that the original owner, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, had expired on
15.12.1978 and therefore could not have executed any document
thereafter, particularly the documents dated 1981 relied upon by the
plaintiffs.
88. The determination of this issue assumes considerable importance
because the validity of the plaintiffs’ entire chain of title depends upon
the continued existence of Kulwant Kaur beyond the year 1978.
Evidence Produced by the Defendants
89. The defendants relied primarily upon the certified extract of the
death register maintained by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana,
exhibited as Ex.DW1/7 and proved through DW5, an official witness
summoned from the concerned authority.
90. The said record shows entry regarding death of one Kulwant Kaur
on 15.12.1978. The witness produced the record from official custody and
deposed regarding the mode of maintenance of such registers.
91. Under Sections 35 and 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, entries made
in public or official records by a public servant in discharge of official
duty carry a presumption of correctness unless successfully rebutted.
92. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Anuradha, (2004)
10 SCC 131, has held that entries in statutory registers maintained by
public authorities constitute relevant and reliable evidence unless strong
contrary material is produced.
Challenge Raised by the Plaintiffs
93. The plaintiffs attempted to dispute the death by producing a “non-
traceable certificate” Ex.PW1/37. However, PW7, the concerned official
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 35 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:13:42 +0530
witness, admitted during cross-examination that the certificate did not
relate specifically to the same Kulwant Kaur. It merely indicated non-
availability of certain records. No verification linking the certificate to the
present person was undertaken.
A non-traceability certificate cannot displace a positive entry in an
official death register.
94. The plaintiffs also relied upon oral testimony alleging that Kulwant
Kaur was seen visiting Delhi after 1978. However, such statements were
admittedly based on hearsay and no independent witness from the locality
or family was examined to corroborate the claim.
Absence of Contrary Scientific or Documentary Evidence
95. Importantly, no alternative death record was produced; no voter
list, ration card, bank record, or governmental document showing
Kulwant Kaur alive after 1978 was filed. No handwriting or forensic
evidence was produced to show execution of documents by her after the
alleged date of death.
Where documentary public record exists, oral assertions cannot
prevail.
96. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has consistently held that official
municipal records enjoy evidentiary weight unless rebutted by cogent
proof and not by mere denial.
Effect on Plaintiffs’ Case
97. Once the death entry dated 15.12.1978 is accepted, the alleged
documents of the year 1981 forming the foundation of the plaintiffs’
claim become inherently doubtful and legally incapable of execution by
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 36 of 53
Digitally
signed by
SUSHEEL SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:13:46
+0530
the deceased person. This circumstance materially supports the findings
recorded under Issue No. 4 regarding invalidity of the plaintiffs’
documents.
98. Upon cumulative appreciation of evidence, the Court finds the
defendants have proved the death entry through official record and
competent witness. The statutory presumption attached to public
documents remains unrebutted. The plaintiffs have failed to produce
reliable evidence showing survival of Kulwant Kaur beyond 1978.
Accordingly, this Court holds that Smt. Kulwant Kaur expired on
15.12.1978. Issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the defendants and against
the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 4 Whether late Smt. Kulwant Kaur was known to Shri Khazan
Singh and whether documents pertaining to the subject property as filed
by the plaintiff on record are forged and fabricated documents? OPD
99. The burden to prove this issue was placed upon the defendants. The
plaintiffs have asserted that Late Smt. Kulwant Kaur, the recorded
purchaser under registered sale deed dated 09.02.1973, transferred
portions of the suit property in the year 1981 in favour of Smt. Krishna
Verma and Shri Khajan Singh through Agreement to Sell, General Power
of Attorney and allied documents, from whom the plaintiffs allegedly
derived title in the year 1992.
100. The defendants have denied the existence of any such transaction
and have alleged that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are
forged and brought into existence after the death of Kulwant Kaur. Effect
of Finding on Issue No.5 (Death of Kulwant Kaur)
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 37 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:13:50
+0530
101. While deciding Issue No.5, this Court has already held, on the
basis of official municipal records admissible under Sections 35 and 74 of
the Indian Evidence Act, that Smt. Kulwant Kaur expired on 15.12.1978.
The inevitable legal consequence of this finding is that any document
purportedly executed by her thereafter becomes inherently doubtful and
requires strict and cogent proof.
102. The alleged transfer documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are
stated to have been executed in the year 1981, i.e., nearly three years after
her death. This circumstance by itself casts a serious cloud upon their
authenticity.
Failure to Prove Due Execution
103. It is settled law that when execution of a document is specifically
denied, the burden lies heavily upon the party relying upon such
document to prove its execution in accordance with law.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5
SCC 353, held that where allegations of fabrication arise, strict proof of
execution is mandatory and suspicious circumstances must be
satisfactorily explained.
104. In the present case, the plaintiffs admittedly had no personal
knowledge of execution of the 1981 documents. No attesting witness to
the alleged agreements or GPA was examined. The signatures of Kulwant
Kaur were not proved through any reliable comparison or admitted
specimen. The plaintiffs were unable to identify handwriting or execution
before any authority.
105. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 is largely hearsay, based upon
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 38 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:13:55
+0530
information allegedly received from relatives, and therefore carries
limited evidentiary value.
Absence of Proof of Relationship or Transaction
106. The plaintiffs also failed to establish any independent relationship
or dealing between Kulwant Kaur and Khajan Singh which could
probabilise the alleged transaction. No neighbour, broker, witness to
payment, or independent person connected with the transaction was
produced.
107. Civil Courts decide matters on preponderance of probabilities, and
the absence of foundational evidence regarding the transaction
substantially weakens the plaintiffs’ case.
Effect of Expert and Circumstantial Evidence
108. The defence has pointed out material inconsistencies in dates,
incomplete particulars and suspicious features appearing in the
documents. Even independent of expert opinion, the surrounding
circumstances, particularly execution after the proved death of the
executant, create grave suspicion.
109. Where documents appear to originate from a person already
deceased, Courts are justified in drawing an adverse inference regarding
genuineness unless convincingly explained.
110. In view of the proved death of Kulwant Kaur in 1978, absence of
proof of execution, non-examination of attesting witnesses, and failure to
establish any genuine transaction with Khajan Singh, the Court holds that
the plaintiffs have failed to establish the genuineness of the documents
forming the foundation of their claim. Accordingly, the documents relied
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 39 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:14:00
+0530
upon by the plaintiffs cannot be treated as proved or reliable for
establishing title. Issue No.4 is decided in favour of the defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 6 Whether the plaintiff was ever and now in possession of the
suit property? OP Parties
112. The burden of proving this issue was placed upon both parties, as
the plaintiffs asserted continuous possession since the alleged purchase in
1992, whereas the defendants denied such possession and claimed that
the property remained vacant prior to their lawful purchase in the year
2008.
113. Possession, in a civil suit relating to immovable property, must be
established through cogent and reliable evidence demonstrating actual
physical control, enjoyment, or continuous exercise of dominion over the
property. Mere assertion of possession unsupported by objective evidence
cannot be accepted.
Evidence Led by the Plaintiffs
114. The plaintiffs pleaded that after execution of documents in their
favour in 1992, they came into possession of the suit property and
retained control thereafter. However, during evidence, serious
deficiencies emerged.
115. The plaintiffs failed to produce any electricity bills, water bills,
house tax records, municipal assessment, or any governmental record
showing their occupation or user of the property at any time after 1992.
PW5, an official witness, stated that the electricity connection stood in the
name of Khajan Singh and remained disconnected since 2004. No
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 40 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:14:03 +0530
application for restoration or transfer was ever made by the plaintiffs.
116. The plaintiff (PW1) admitted during cross-examination that she
was residing abroad and used to visit India only occasionally. No
documentary proof of maintenance, construction activity, tenancy, or
supervision of the property was produced.
117. The Local Commissioner’s report (Ex.PW5/1) recorded that the
property was lying vacant and locked, and neighbouring witnesses did not
confirm continuous occupation of the plaintiffs.
These circumstances materially weaken the plea of settled
possession.
Legal Position Regarding Proof of Possession
118. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa
Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769, held that possession must be effective,
continuous, and exclusive, and cannot be inferred from sporadic visits or
unsubstantiated claims.
119. Similarly, in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC
594, it was held that where possession is disputed, the plaintiff must
establish actual possession through clear evidence; otherwise relief of
declaration or injunction cannot follow.
Applying these principles, occasional visits by an NRI claimant or
symbolic assertion of ownership cannot amount to legal possession.
Evidence of the Defendants
120. The defendants relied upon their registered Sale Deed dated
09.07.2008 and subsequent acts asserting control over the property. While
registration by itself does not conclusively establish possession, it
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 41 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:14:07
+0530
constitutes a relevant circumstance when coupled with absence of proof
from the opposite side.
121. The evidence on record indicates that prior to the defendants’
purchase, the property was lying vacant rather than being under active
possession of the plaintiffs.
Effect of Earlier Findings
122. This Court has already held under Issues No. 4 and 5 that Kulwant
Kaur died on 15.12.1978; and the documents forming the plaintiffs’ chain
are forged and void.
123. Once the foundational documents themselves stand disbelieved, the
plaintiffs’ claim of possession allegedly flowing from those documents
becomes inherently doubtful unless independently proved, which has not
been done.
Appreciation of Evidence
124. On cumulative appreciation, the Court finds no reliable
documentary evidence proving plaintiffs’ possession at any time after
1992. There is long absence and lack of control by plaintiffs and property
remaining locked/vacant. There is no proof of continuous, peaceful, or
settled possession. Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their
burden.
125. Accordingly, the Court holds that the plaintiffs have failed to prove
that they were ever in settled possession of the suit property; and the
plaintiffs are also not in possession of the suit property at present. Issue
No. 6 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 42 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:14:11
+0530
Issue no. 1 Whether the written statement and affidavit in support thereof
as filed by the defendant can be looked into? OPP
126. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
have objected to the written statement of the defendants on the ground
that the same does not contain a proper verification clause as mandated
under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and
therefore the written statement cannot be looked into by the Court.
It is necessary at the outset to examine the legal requirement
regarding verification of pleadings.
127. Order VI Rule 15 CPC mandates that every pleading shall be
verified by the party specifying which statements are based on personal
knowledge and which are based on information and belief. Verification is
intended to fix responsibility upon the party making pleadings and to
ensure authenticity of averments placed before the Court.
128. In the present case, a perusal of the written statement shows that
although it bears signatures of the defendants, it does not contain a proper
verification clause in the manner prescribed under Order VI Rule 15
CPC. The affidavit accompanying the written statement also does not
cure this defect in substance.
129. The question therefore arises whether such defect renders the
written statement non-est in law.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash
v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480, held that procedural provisions relating to
pleadings are directory in nature and are meant to advance justice rather
than defeat adjudication on merits. It was observed that unless serious
prejudice is caused, procedural irregularities should not result in striking
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 43 of 53
Digitally
signed by
SUSHEEL SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:14:16
+0530
off the defence.
130. Similarly, in Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of
India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, the Supreme Court clarified that defects
relating to verification or affidavit are curable irregularities and courts
should ordinarily permit rectification.
131. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has consistently held that absence
or defect in verification does not automatically render pleadings void,
particularly where parties have proceeded to trial and evidence has been
recorded without objection at the appropriate stage.
132. However, it is equally settled that pleadings lacking verification
lose evidentiary sanctity and cannot be treated as statements affirmed on
oath. In such circumstances, the pleadings may remain on record but their
probative value stands diluted.
133. In the present case the defendants participated throughout the trial;
evidence was led by both parties; plaintiffs cross-examined defence
witnesses at length; no application seeking opportunity to cure
verification defect was moved by defendants despite objection even upto
the stage of final arguments and only as a second thought on clarifications
being asked for by the Court, that the defendant no.1 and 2, at the stage of
judgment moved an application for taking on record the verification
clause in their written statement. The Court allowed the same in view of
the caselaw Scindia Protteries and Services Ltd. v. Sri Chand 1996 Legal
Eagle (DEL) 467, being a procedural defect. However, no amended
written statement was brought on record by the defendant no. 1 and 2.
The defendant no.3 did not move application to get cured the defects in
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 44 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:14:20 +0530
his written statement regarding the verification clause.
Thus, while the written statement cannot be discarded altogether at
this advanced stage of trial, the absence of verification materially affects
the evidentiary weight to be attached to the pleadings.
134. Accordingly, this Court holds that: written statement of defendant
no.1 and 2 is taken on record. However, the written statement of
defendant no.3 cannot be treated as a duly verified pleading in strict
compliance with Order VI Rule 15 CPC. Still, in the interest of
substantive justice, it shall remain on record and may be looked into only
to the extent supported by independent evidence led by the defendants.
Issue No.1 is therefore decided partly in favour of the plaintiffs, holding
that the written statement of defendant no.3 suffers from a material
procedural defect, though it is not liable to be struck off entirely.
Issue no. 2 Whether the defendant no. 3 sold the subject property to
defendant no. 1 and 2 being competent and capable and whether
defendant no. 1 and 2 are lawful owners of the subject property? OP
Parties
135. The onus to establish this issue was upon both parties, as
competing claims of title have been raised.
The defendants assert that defendant No.3, being the son and legal
heir of Late Smt. Kulwant Kaur, validly transferred the suit property
through a registered sale deed dated 09.07.2008 in favour of defendants
No.1 and 2. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, dispute both the
competency of defendant No.3 and the validity of the conveyance.
136. At the outset, it must be noted that while deciding Issue No.1, this
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 45 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:14:24
+0530
Court has already held that the written statement filed by the defendant
no.3 suffers from absence of proper verification and therefore cannot be
relied upon as a duly affirmed pleading. Consequently, the defendants
must independently establish their title through legally admissible
evidence and not merely through pleadings.
Competency of Defendant No.3
137. The defendants rely upon the plea that Smt. Kulwant Kaur died on
15.12.1978 and succession devolved upon her legal heirs including
defendant No.3. The death of Kulwant Kaur has already been held proved
under Issue No.5 on the basis of municipal records admissible under
Sections 35 and 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, mere assertion of heirship does not automatically
establish exclusive ownership.
138. The defendants have not produced: any succession certificate, legal
heir certificate issued by competent authority, family tree proved through
independent witnesses, or documentary evidence excluding existence of
other heirs.
It is settled law that succession to property must be affirmatively
proved. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has repeatedly held that a person
claiming title through inheritance must establish the chain of succession
through cogent evidence and cannot rely merely upon self-serving
assertions.
139. Therefore, although defendant No.3 may prima facie claim to be
one of the heirs, exclusive authority to transfer the entire property has not
been conclusively established. It is pertinent to mention here that
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 46 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:14:28 +0530
defendant no.3 neither stepped up in the witness box to testify that he is
the only legal heir of deceased Kulwant Kaur nor appeared to depose that
he had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 as sole
heir of Kulwant Kaur.
Effect of Registered Sale Deed dated 09.07.2008
The defendants rely heavily upon the registered sale deed executed
in their favour.
140. There is no dispute that a registered conveyance carries strong
evidentiary value. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narandas Karsondas v.
S.A. Kamtam, 1977 AIR 774, held that ownership in immovable property
passes only through a registered conveyance.
141. However, registration by itself does not cure defects in title of the
vendor. A transferee can acquire only such title as the transferor
possessed. This principle, commonly expressed as nemo dat quod non
habet, has been consistently recognised by Courts.
142. Since defendant No.3’s exclusive ownership has not been
conclusively proved, the registered sale deed cannot automatically confer
absolute ownership upon defendants No.1 and 2.
Comparative Strength of Title
143. At the same time, the plaintiffs’ claim has already failed because:
their title is based solely on GPA/Agreement to Sell transactions, and
such documents do not convey ownership in view of Suraj Lamp &
Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 and Shiv
Kumar v. Union of India, (2019) 19 SCC 229.
144. Thus, the defendants’ title is not proved to the level required for
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 47 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:14:32
+0530
declaration of ownership. Moreover, no counter-claim has been filed by
the defendants claiming themselves to be owners of the suit property.
145. Accordingly, this Court holds that defendant No.3 has not
conclusively proved exclusive ownership so as to establish absolute
competency to transfer the entire property. Consequently, defendants
No.1 and 2 cannot be declared absolute owners on the basis of evidence
led in the present suit. Issue No.2 is therefore decided partly against the
defendants, holding that they are not entitled to a declaration of
ownership, though the plaintiffs have failed to dislodge their registered
conveyance.
Issue no. 3 Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of
Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
146. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants. The
defendants have contended that the suit has been improperly valued and
that this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present
proceedings. It is argued that the market value of the property is
substantially higher than the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs.
147. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, have valued the suit for the
purposes of declaration, cancellation of documents and consequential
injunction at Rs.33,65,500/- and have affixed Court fee of Rs. 35,342/- in
accordance with the Court Fees Act.
148. At this stage, it is necessary to examine the settled legal principles
governing valuation of suits seeking declaration and cancellation of
documents relating to immovable property.
149. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v.
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 48 of 53
Digitally
signed by
SUSHEEL SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:14:37
+0530
Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112, has clearly held that where a plaintiff
seeks cancellation of a sale deed to which he is not an executant, Court
fee is payable on the value as stated by the plaintiff under Section 7(iv)(c)
of the Court Fees Act, subject to the control of the Court if valuation
appears arbitrary or illusory.
150. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has repeatedly held that in
suits for declaration coupled with consequential relief, valuation made by
the plaintiff ordinarily governs jurisdiction unless the defendant produces
cogent material showing deliberate undervaluation.
151. In the present case the defendants have not produced any circle rate
notification, valuation report, or independent documentary material to
demonstrate that the suit property exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of
this Court. No expert evidence regarding prevailing market value has
been led. The valuation adopted by the plaintiffs broadly corresponds
with the consideration reflected in the impugned registered sale deed of
the year 2008.
Mere assertion that the property is more valuable cannot displace
the valuation disclosed in the plaint.
152. It is also settled that an objection relating to valuation must be
supported by evidence and cannot succeed on conjectures. In absence of
reliable material showing deliberate undervaluation, the Court has no
reason to reject the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs.
153. Accordingly, the Court holds that the suit has been properly valued
for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and the Court possesses the
requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present suit. Issue No.3 is
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 49 of 53
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:14:42 +0530
decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue No.10 Relief
154. In view of the findings returned on the preceding issues, the
entitlement of the parties to the reliefs claimed is required to be
determined.
The plaintiffs have sought cancellation of Agreement to Sell dated
22.04.2008, GPA, Sale Deed dated 09.07.2008 and Possession Letter,
declaration of ownership and possession in respect of Plot No. 4
measuring 250 sq. yds., situated at Village Hastsal, Delhi and permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the alleged
rights of the plaintiffs. However, the cumulative findings of this Court
may be briefly recapitulated:
156 Under Issue No.1, the written statement, though defective (of
defendant no. 3) for want of proper verification, was treated as curable
and the defendants were permitted to contest the matter on merits in the
interest of substantial justice, no prejudice having been caused to the
plaintiffs.
157. Under Issue No.5, it stands proved through reliable public records
that Smt. Kulwant Kaur expired on 15.12.1978. Consequentially, under
Issue No.4, the documents allegedly executed in the year 1981 in her
name were found inherently suspicious and legally untenable, execution
having not been proved in accordance with law.
158. Under Issues No.7, 8 and 9, this Court has held that the plaintiffs’
claim is founded upon unregistered GPA/Agreement to Sell transactions
which, in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and SectionsCiv DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 50 of 53
Digitally
signed by
SUSHEEL SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.31
17:14:46
+0530
17 and 49 of the Registration Act, do not convey ownership and are
inadmissible for proving title.
159. While deciding Issue No. 2, the Court has already held that
although the defendants rely upon a registered Sale Deed dated
09.07.2008, they have not conclusively established complete ownership
in the strict legal sense owing to absence of comprehensive proof
regarding succession and heirship of the original owner Kulwant Kaur.
Consequently, the defendants cannot be declared absolute owners merely
on the strength of the evidence led in the present proceedings. However,
the determination of ownership is distinct from determination of
possession.
160. Under Issue No. 6, the Court has found, upon appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence, that the plaintiffs have failed to prove either
past or present possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs produced no
municipal, utility, taxation, or independent evidence demonstrating
continuous physical control over the property. The Local Commissioner’s
report and official testimony rather indicate that the property remained
vacant.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi
Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, has clarified that where neither clear title nor
possession is proved, a plaintiff cannot succeed merely by pointing out
defects in the defendant’s case. The plaintiff must stand on the strength of
his own title and possession. Similarly, it is a settled principle that failure
of the defendant to conclusively prove ownership does not automatically
result in a decree in favour of the plaintiff unless the plaintiff
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 51 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:14:53
+0530
independently establishes a better legal right.
Therefore, even though the defendants are not granted a positive
declaration of ownership, the plaintiffs equally fail to establish any
enforceable right warranting declaration, cancellation, or injunction. The
defendants’ registered sale deed, though insufficient in the present suit to
conclusively declare absolute ownership, nevertheless, at minimum
rebuts the plaintiffs’ assertion of lawful entitlement on basis of void and
unproved documents. It is a settled principle of civil law that a plaintiff
must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the perceived
weakness of the defence.
161. Thus, the legal position emerging is that in the present case, the
plaintiffs have failed to prove valid transfer of ownership, lawful
possession, or any legally enforceable right requiring protection by the
Court. Defendants cannot be declared absolute owners in this suit.
However, once the foundational title itself is not proved, the prayer for
cancellation of defendants’ documents cannot be granted, as cancellation
presupposes existence of a superior legal right in favour of the plaintiffs.
Relief of declaration cannot be granted. Civil Courts do not grant
declarations in vacuum. The absence of proof on both sides results in
dismissal of the claim of the party carrying the burden.
161. Similarly, permanent injunction being consequential in nature
cannot survive independently. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anathula
Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 , has categorically held
that declaration and injunction cannot be granted unless the plaintiff
establishes a clear legal title. Permanent injunction cannot follow in
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 52 of 53
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.31
DAGAR 17:14:57
+0530
absence of possession or title. Accordingly, this Court holds that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the plaint.
Final Order
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view of
the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties to bear their own
costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room. SUSHEEL
Digitally
signed by
SUSHEEL
BALA
BALA DAGAR
DAGAR Date:
2026.01.31
17:15:02
+0530Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar)
on 31st Day of January 2026 District Judge-08, West
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 53 pages.)
Civ DJ 608563/2016 Veena Rani v. Naseeb Singh Page no. 53 of 53
