Delhi District Court
Rani Kursija vs Rishi Parkash on 7 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY MS HALA QUAMAR
CNR No:-DLCT030000562007
CS SCJ No.594032/16
1. Smt. Rani Kursija
W/o Sh. Narain Dass,
R/o A-3/8, Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi-110009.
2. Smt. Anju Kursija
W/o Mahesh Ahuja
R/o CP-133, Pitampura,
Delhi.
3. Smt. Sangeeta Kataria
W/o Sh. Sunil Kataria
R/o B-34, Second Floor,
South Extension Part-II,
New Delhi-110049.
4. Smt. Madhu @ Ritika
W/o Sh. Manohar Lal Gangwana,
R/o C-44, First Floor,
Gurudwara Wali Gali,
Mahendru Enclave,
Delhi-110009. ....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Sh. Rishi Parkash
S/o Sh. Narain Dut
R/o D-9, Yadav Nagar,
Delhi-110042
2. Sh. Tejbeer Sharma
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.1 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:22:07 +0530
S/o Late Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma
R/o 84, Village Ujjwa, Nazafgarh,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Prashant Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Niranjan Aggarwal
R/o D-503, Vinobha Kunj
Sector-9, Rohini,
Delhi-110085. ..Defendants
Date of institution of suit 10.12.2007
Date on which reserved for judgment 06.06.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment 07.07.2026
Decision DECREED
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. The brief facts stated in the plaint are that the plaintiffs
purchased a built-up property measuring 3750 sq. yards, situated
in Khewat No. 68/67 out of Khasra No. 53 in the revenue estate
of Village Humayunpur, Colony known as Arjun Nagar, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”), shown in red
colour in the site plan, through four registered sale deeds dated
02.07.2003 executed before the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. Out of the
total area, plaintiff No.1 purchased 900 sq. yards, while plaintiffs
No.2 to 4 purchased 950 sq. yards each. The plaintiffs claim to be
in actual physical possession of the entire suit property since its
purchase from the erstwhile owner, Sh. Narain Das. It is further
stated that the plaintiffs had executed a General Power of
Attorney and a Will dated 09.01.2004 in favour of defendant No.1
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Digitally signed Page No.2 of 61
by HALA
QUAMAR
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:22:11
+0530
without consideration and not pursuant to any sale transaction.
Subsequently, defendant No.1 allegedly acted mala fide and got
the said GPA registered on 02.09.2004 before the concerned Sub-
Registrar, Delhi. Upon learning this, the plaintiffs cancelled the
GPA and the Will on 22.09.2004 and also published a public
notice regarding such cancellation in the newspaper “Veer Arjun”
dated 30.11.2006. According to the plaintiffs, since the GPA dated
09.01.2004 remained unregistered until 02.09.2004, defendant
No.1 had no authority or right in respect of the suit property and,
therefore, could not execute any document concerning the same
in favour of any person. However, the plaintiffs came to know in
the last week of October 2007 that defendant No.1 was claiming
ownership over 426 sq. yards forming part of the suit property.
Upon inquiry, the plaintiffs discovered that defendant No.2 had
executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 on the basis of
an alleged GPA dated 02.06.2004 purportedly executed by
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs
contend that on 02.06.2004 defendant No.1 neither possessed any
right, title, authority, nor any registered document empowering
him to execute a GPA in favour of defendant No.2. Consequently,
the GPA executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2
is alleged to be illegal, null and void. As a result, defendant No.2
also lacked authority to execute any sale deed in favour of
defendant No.3, rendering the sale deed dated 29.06.2007
registered as document No.6972, Addl. Book No.1, Volume
No.3789, pages 1 to 15 before the Sub-Registrar IX, New Delhi,
void and without legal effect. The plaintiffs further state that they
are joint owners and continue to remain in possession of the entire
suit property, which has not yet been partitioned among them.
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Digitally signed Page No.3 of 61
HALA by HALA
QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:22:16 +0530
They allege that the defendants have no possession over any
portion of the property and cannot assign private numbers such as
“2-D” or otherwise represent themselves as owners. It is also
alleged that defendants No.1 and 2, in collusion with each other,
executed several sale deeds in favour of different persons despite
having no lawful title. The plaintiffs further aver that the
defendants attempted to forcibly take possession of the suit
property with the assistance of musclemen, but failed due to
timely intervention by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs
seek declaration and cancellation of the impugned GPA and sale
deed and pray for restraint against the defendants from interfering
with their possession or dispossessing them from the suit
property.
2. Summons of the suit have been served on the defendants,
upon which both the defendants appeared and the matter was
listed for filing of written statement on behalf of defendants.
3. It is pertinent to note that upon appearance, a written
statement was filed only behalf of Defendant No.2 and
Defendant No. 3. No written statement was filed by Defendant
Nos.1, and therefore his defence had already been struck off
vide order dated 03.08.2013.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.2
4. It is submitted on behalf of defendant No.2 that the
plaintiffs failed to disclose to Defendant that the Power of
Attorney executed in favour of the defendant had already been
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.4 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:22:20 +0530
legally and validly cancelled. It is further stated that the father of
the plaintiffs and the defendant were well acquainted with each
other. According to the defendant, the present suit is not
maintainable in law as it is barred by the principles of estoppel,
waiver, and acquiescence. It is further contended that the
plaintiffs themselves arranged the stamp papers, got the contents
typed thereon, and also arranged the witnesses required for
execution of the GPA. The plaintiffs allegedly executed the GPA
in favour of the defendant on 09.01.2004, and the same was duly
presented before the Sub-Registrar for execution and registration,
where the plaintiffs signed the document. It is stated that the
document was thereafter kept pending only for allotment of the
registration number in the ordinary course of office procedure.
The defendant further alleges that the present suit has been
instituted merely to harass the defendants and extort money from
them. It is also contended that the title of the suit is defective
inasmuch as the cancellation and declaration sought by the
plaintiffs do not pertain to any sale deed belonging to the
defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs had duly
executed all legally required documents in favour of defendant
No.1, who thereafter, acting under such authority, executed a
Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.2, and defendant
No.2 validly executed sale deeds in favour of subsequent
purchasers. Hence, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed at the
threshold. It is further submitted that defendant No.3 purchased
the suit property in accordance with Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act. The defendant contends that cancellation or
declaration regarding the sale deed cannot be granted unless there
is material establishing fraud in the execution of the sale deed byDigitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.5 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:22:25 +0530
the vendee. The allegations made in the plaint against the
defendants are stated to be false, frivolous, and vexatious. It is
also contended that the suit is not maintainable as the mandatory
legal provisions governing suits for permanent injunction and
declaration have not been complied with. According to the
defendant, the Power of Attorney executed in favour of defendant
No.1 is valid, proper, and legally enforceable, and the plaintiffs,
having admitted and acted upon the same, are estopped from
disputing its validity. The defendant has also raised objections
regarding misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, improper
valuation of the suit, and the absence of any legally enforceable
relief claimed by the plaintiffs as alleged owners of the property.
It is further contended that the plaint does not disclose any cause
of action against the answering defendant. All other averments
made in the plaint have been denied in toto on behalf of the
defendants.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.3
5. It is submitted on behalf of defendant No.3 that defendant
No.3 has purchased the plot No.2, land area measuring 426 sq
yards out of Khasra No.53, Khewat No.68/67, intekal no.1924
situated in the colony known as Arjun Nagar, in the area village
of Humanyu Pur, Delhi State, New Delhi from defendant No.2 on
29.06.2007 vide registered sale deed, which is registered with the
office of Sub Registrar IX, Delhi vide document No.6979 Addl
Book No.1, Volume No.3789 at pages 106-120. That defendant
No.3 is bonafide purchaser of the above said plot and he
purchased the same after paying Rs.13,63,000/- and duly
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.6 of 61
Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:22:29
+0530
verifying the registered GPA of defendant No.2 and defendant
No.1, therefore the defendant No.3 is the legal owner of the above
mentioned property and plaintiffs have no claim in the same after
execution of sale deed, hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to
be dismissed. That the suit is liable to be rejected under provisions
of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the suit of the plaintiffs is undervalued
and requisite court fee has not been paid. That this Court does not
have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit and same
is liable to be dismissed as the consideration amount of the sale
deed is Rs.13,63,000/-. That the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to
be dismissed as no cause of action has arisen for filing of this suit
and the plaintiffs are misusing the process of law. That defendant
No.3 purchased the suit property from defendant No.2 vide
registered sale deed dated 29.06.2007 and at the time of execution
of sale deed the defendant No.3 paid Rs.13,63,000/- to the
defendant No.2 towards sale consideration amount of the subject
matter of sale deed. That at the time of execution of sale deed the
defendant No.2 also handed over the possession of the suit
property to the defendant No.3 and since he is in possession of
the property as a legal owner and plaintiffs have no right in the
above said property. That present suit is also liable to be dismissed
as the plaintiffs have not approached this Court with clean hands
and the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from this
Court. That in suit plaintiffs have stated that they executed the
GPA and Will on 09.01.2004 in favour of defendant No.1,
however, in the objection filed by them in mutation proceedings,
plaintiffs have stated that they did not execute any GPA and Will
and same are forged and fabricated. That it is evident from the
fact that before SDM they stated that they did not execute GPA
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.7 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:22:33 +0530
and Will and in plaint they have stated that they executed GPA
and will but later on allegedly cancelled the same. That suit of the
plaintiffs is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed as
plaintiffs have not challenged the validity and execution on the
GPA dated 02.06.2004 on which basis the sale deed was executed.
That once the plaintiffs failed to challenge the said GPA they
cannot challenge the subsequent sale deed dated 29.06.2007.
6. Thereafter separate replications have been filed on behalf
of plaintiffs to the written statements of defendant No.2 and 3
thereby denying the averments made in the written statements and
reiterating the averments made in the plaint.
7. Thereafter on completion of pleadings, following issues
were framed:-
1.Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose
of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD
2. Whether the registration of GPA dated 09.01.2004 on
02.09.2004 was valid and proper?OPD
3. Whether the GPA dated 09.01.2004 executed by the plaintiff
in favour of defendant No.1 was revocable and was validly
cancelled by the plaintiff on 22.09.2004?OPP
4. Whether the GPA dated 02.06.2004 executed by defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of GPA dated
09.01.2004 is fraudulent and illegal?OPP
5. Whether the defendant No.2 was competent to execute the
sale deed dated 02.07.2007 in favour of defendant No.3 on the
strength of GPA dated 02.06.2004?OPDDigitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR
Page No.8 of 61
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:22:38 +0530
6. Whether the sale deed dated 02.07.2007 is fraudulent, illegal
and liable to be cancelled?OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as
prayed for in para no.A of the prayer clause?OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent
injunction as prayed in para no.B and C of prayer clause?OPP
9. Relief.
8. It is important to note that there are four plaintiffs
(through one SPA Holder) who executed four separate GPAs
in favour of Defendant No.1, who in turn executed 4
corresponding GPAs in favour of Defendant No.2, and
Defendant No.2 further executed various sale deeds in favour
of different individuals arrayed as Defendant No.3 in different
suits. On the basis of these transactions, eight suits came to be
filed by all the four Plaintiffs. One suit bearing CIS no:
98410/2016 was decreed on 13.11.2019, while the remaining
seven suits were consolidated and evidence was led jointly,
which is accordingly being considered in all files.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
9. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, the plaintiff got
examined Sangeeta Kataria as a witness PW-1. PW-1 tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the
following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 Copy of SPAs (OSR) Ex.PW1/4 Site plan. Digitally signed by HALA CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.9 of 61 QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07 17:22:42 +0530 Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/8 Four Sale Deeds dated 02.07.2003. Ex.PW1/9 Cancellation of GPA dated 22.09.2004. (OSR) Ex.PW1/10 Cancellation of Will dated 22.09.2004. (OSR) Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/13 Cancellation of GPA dated 22.09.2004 by plaintiff No.1,2 & 4. (OSR) Ex.PW1/14 to Ex.PW1/16 Cancellation of Will dated 22.09.2004 by plaintiff No.1,2 & 4. (OSR) Mark A Publication in newspaper "Veer Arjun" 9.1 PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the learned counsel for
Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated
that she had purchased the suit property from Mr. Narian Dass S/o
Sh. Pinnamal on 02.07.2003 and that, at the time of execution of
the sale deed, the property was lying vacant. She further deposed
that Defendant No.1 was very close to the family and was loyal
to her father. PW-1 admitted that a GPA and a Will, both dated
09.01.2004, were executed in favour of Defendant No.1 by her,
her mother, and her two sisters for the purpose of looking after
the suit property. She further admitted that the said GPA and Will
were not registered. However, she denied the suggestion that she,
along with her mother and sisters, had appeared before the Sub-
Registrar for registration of the GPA and Will. PW-1 further
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.10 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:22:46 +0530
admitted that under the said GPA, powers had been granted to
Defendant No.1 to sell the property, enter into agreements,
receive consideration, and hand over possession. However, she
voluntarily stated that it had been agreed between the family
members and Defendant No.1 that the GPA was executed only for
looking after the property and not for transferring the same. She
further stated that they came to know about the execution of GPA
dated 02.06.2004 by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2
only after learning about the sale deed executed in favour of
Defendant No.3. PW-1 admitted that no application for
cancellation of the GPA dated 02.06.2004 had been filed till date.
She also admitted that no complaint had been lodged against
Defendant No.1 regarding the alleged fraud or misuse of the GPA
dated 09.01.2004, though she denied the suggestion that no
complaint was made because they were aware of the execution
dated 02.06.2004. PW-1 stated that she did not remember whether
any communication had been sent to Defendant No.1 regarding
misuse of the GPA dated 09.01.2004. She further admitted that no
document had been placed on record to show that any such
communication had been made. She deposed that a publication
dated 30.11.2006 had been made in the newspaper “Veer Arjun”
cautioning the general public not to deal with Defendant No.1 on
the basis of GPA dated 09.01.2004, as the same had allegedly been
cancelled. PW-1 further stated that they came to know about the
GPA dated 02.06.2004 only after filing of the suit. During the
course of cross-examination, PW-1 was shown a copy of the sale
deed dated 29.06.2007, which she identified as the sale deed
challenged in the present suit, and the same was exhibited as Ex.
PW1/D1. PW-1 stated that she did not know whether Ex.
Digitally signed by HALA CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.11 of 61 QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07 17:22:51 +0530
PW1/D1 contained any reference to the GPA dated 02.06.2004,
and voluntarily added that since her father had been looking after
all litigations before his demise, she was not aware of the said
reference. PW-1 further stated that she was a graduate and had
filed the present suit after reading and understanding the contents
of the plaint. She also deposed that she had gone through all the
documents before placing them on record. However, she stated
that she could not say with certainty whether Ex. PW1/4 was the
site plan pertaining to the suit property. She admitted that no
construction had been raised on the property after its purchase,
but voluntarily added that her father might have carried out some
construction. She also admitted that neither she nor her family
members had contributed any amount from their accounts
towards construction on the suit property. PW-1 further admitted
that the sale deeds Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/8 pertained only to
vacant land and that no construction existed at the time of their
execution, though she voluntarily stated that there had been some
kacha structure on the property at that time. She denied the
suggestion that all the rooms shown in Ex. PW1/4 had been
constructed by Defendant No.3. PW-1 denied the suggestion that
consideration had been received from Defendant No.1 for
execution of the GPA dated 09.01.2004. She also denied the
suggestion that false cases had been filed due to increase in
property prices over the years. In response to a question regarding
possession, PW-1 stated that no persons were residing in the suit
property except their chowkidar, who resided there with his
family, and a guard appointed by them who looked after the
property but did not reside there. PW-1 further stated that she was
not aware whether Defendant No.3 had purchased the suit
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.12 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:22:55 +0530
property after paying the entire sale consideration to Defendant
No.2. She stated that she came to know about non-encashment of
the cheques allegedly issued by Defendant No.3 to Defendant
No.2 only after reading the contents of her affidavit filed during
examination-in-chief. She further clarified that the contents of the
affidavit had been disclosed to her counsel after obtaining
knowledge from her husband, who was looking after all the cases.
PW-1 admitted that in paragraph 13 of her affidavit, she had stated
that the impugned sale deeds were illegal and sham documents as
no consideration had passed. However, she voluntarily added that
the sale deeds were also invalid because the GPA dated
09.01.2004 was never registered and the GPA dated 02.06.2004
was illegal. PW-1 denied the suggestion that Defendant No.3 had
never attempted to forcibly occupy the suit property or that
Defendant No.3 had been in possession since execution of the sale
deed in his favour. She also denied the suggestion that no incident
dated 18.11.2007 had occurred, as mentioned in paragraph 19 of
her affidavit. She voluntarily stated that their chowkidar had
telephonically informed them that certain “gunda type” persons
had attempted to enter the property. PW-1 admitted that she was
not personally present at the time of the alleged incident and
further stated that her deposition in this regard was based solely
on information received from the chowkidar and guard through
her husband. PW-1 further deposed that she came to know about
Defendant No.3 allegedly attempting to sell the suit property to
M/s Neelgagan Infratech Pvt. Ltd. through a newspaper
publication. However, she admitted that she had neither
mentioned the name of the newspaper nor the date of publication
in her pleadings, and had also not placed the newspaper cuttingCS SCJ No.594032/2016 Digitally signed Page No.13 of 61
by HALA
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:22:59 +0530
on record. She further stated that she did not remember the name
of the newspaper or the date of publication. PW-1 denied the
suggestion that Defendant No.3 had never entered into any
agreement with M/s Neelgagan Infratech Pvt. Ltd. or that no such
newspaper publication existed. Lastly, PW-1 denied the
suggestion that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit
property or that they had no rights left in the property after
execution of the GPA dated 09.01.2004. She also denied the
suggestion that the entire sale consideration had been received by
them and further denied the suggestion that she was deposing
falsely.
9.2 PW-2 was the summoned witness, namely the Zonal
Inspector from the House Tax Department, SDMC South. He
brought the record pertaining to House No. 2, Arjun Nagar, New
Delhi, consisting of the house tax receipt and a letter issued by
the MCD to the applicant seeking mutation of the said property,
whereby objections had been raised against such mutation. The
said documents were exhibited as Ex. PW2/1 and Ex. PW2/2
respectively. PW-2 further deposed that he was not aware as to
who was paying the property tax, as the same was based on a self-
assessment system. During cross-examination, PW-2 admitted
that Ex. PW2/2 had been issued by the MCD with respect to Plot
No. 2 admeasuring 100 square yards. He further admitted that till
date the property had not been mutated in the name of the
plaintiffs. PW-2 also stated that the property in dispute had been
described as a commercial property in Ex. PW2/1. However, he
deposed that he had no knowledge as to whether the property was
actually being used for commercial purposes, as he had never
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.14 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:23:04 +0530
visited the property. PW-2 further deposed that he had been posted
in the concerned zone for the last one year, though the area in
which the suit property was situated had come under his
jurisdiction only for the preceding three months, i.e., since
October 2015. He further stated that the locality in which the suit
property was situated was categorized as a mixed land use zone.
PW-2 lastly deposed that he was not aware whether the suit
property was vacant or occupied.
9.3 It is pertinent to note that two witnesses have been
examined as PW-2, therefore the witness who has been
examined later be read as PW-2A.
9.4. PW-2A was the summoned witness who brought on record
the newspaper “Veer Arjun” dated 30.11.2006 in order to prove
the publication of the public notice regarding revocation of the
GPA and Will by Plaintiff. The said newspaper publication was
exhibited as Ex. PW2/1. Despite opportunity being granted, the
said witness was not cross-examined by the defendants.
9.5. PW-3 was the Lineman from BSES Rajdhani Power who
brought the record pertaining to electricity meter bearing CA No.
012421773/CRN No. 2550067961, initially registered in the
name of Ms. Sangeeta Kataria and installed at House No. 2, Arjun
Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that the said electricity connection
had existed since the year 1976, as reflected from the electricity
bill wherein the date of energization was mentioned as
06.03.1976. The copy of the electricity bill was exhibited as Ex.
PW3/1. PW-3 further stated that only a photocopy of the bill was
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA by HALA
QUAMAR Page No.15 of 61
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:23:08 +0530
retained by the department as the original bill was sent to the
customer. He also deposed that he was not aware as to who was
depositing the electricity bills in respect of the said connection.
He further stated that the connection continued to remain in the
name of Ms. Sangeeta Kataria. During cross-examination, PW-3
deposed that the aforesaid electricity connection was for domestic
purposes and that he was stating so on the basis of official records.
He further stated that the documents submitted at the time of
installation of the said connection were not available in the
records, as all records in the year 1976 were maintained by DESU.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that all records pertaining to existing
connections had been transferred to the respective departments,
namely TPDDL and BSES, at the time of takeover from DESU
and that he had deliberately withheld the same. PW-3 further
deposed that he had been posted as a Lineman with BSES at the
present location since the year 2004. He stated that he was not
aware as to who was presently residing in the suit property. He
admitted that whenever any payment towards electricity bills was
received either by cash or internet banking, the receipts were
retained by the department for record purposes. However, he
stated that he could not say in what manner the bills were being
paid, by whom they were being paid, or through which mode. He
denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not produced the
receipts pertaining to payment of the electricity bills by
Defendant No.1. PW-3 further stated that he had not brought the
entire record pertaining to the aforesaid electricity connection. He
deposed that on 28.07.2015, one Hariom Dutt had filed an
application seeking transfer of the electricity connection in his
name by submitting certain documents including an affidavit,Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.16 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:23:12 +0530
voter identity card, copy of the electricity bill, GPA dated
02.01.2004, GPA executed by Rishi Prakash in favour of Tejbir
Sharma dated 02.06.2004, and sale deed dated 29.06.2007
executed by Tejbir Sharma in favour of Hariom Dutt. The said
documents were collectively exhibited as Ex. PW3/D1 (colly).
PW-3 stated that the certified copies of the said documents were
seen and returned, while the original application was also seen
and returned. PW-3 further deposed that he had no knowledge as
to whether any further action had been initiated by the department
pursuant to the said application. He admitted that he had not
brought any document regarding the same and stated that the
department had no record showing any action taken after filing of
the application. He further stated that he could not say why no
action had been taken by the department pursuant to the said
application. PW-3 also deposed that BSES had no record
regarding any visit made by any official of BSES to the suit
property. He stated that on the basis of available records, he could
not say who was presently occupying the suit property. He further
stated that it was possible that the person in whose name the
electricity connection stood might not be in possession of the
property. He reiterated that although the electricity connection
still stood in the name of Ms. Sangeeta Kataria, he could not say
whether she or her relatives were in occupation of the suit
property. PW-3 further deposed that he was not aware whether
Ms. Sangeeta Kataria had ever filed any complaint or issued any
notice to BSES regarding the said electricity connection. He also
stated that he had no personal knowledge regarding the time that
would ordinarily be consumed by the department in disposal of
an application for transfer of connection. He further deposed thatCS SCJ No.594032/2016 Digitally signed by Page No.17 of 61
HALA HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:23:17 +0530
he was not aware, on the basis of the records brought by him, as
to the stage at which the said application was pending, and stated
that such information was available only in the computer system
of the department known as AMPS.
9.6. PW-4 was the summoned witness, namely the Commercial
Officer from MTNL, New Delhi, who brought on record the
photocopy of the record pertaining to Telephone No. 26172483
bearing CA No. 2033235467 under category “Non OYT
General,” installed at Property No. 2, Ground Floor, Arjun Nagar,
New Delhi-110002. He deposed that the said telephone
connection had been installed in the name of Ms. Sangeeta
Kataria, i.e., Plaintiff No.3, since 20.03.2008. PW-4 further stated
that he had not brought the original record on the said date. PW-4
further deposed that he had brought the certified copy of the
payment details pertaining to Telephone No. 011-26172483 (CA
No. 2033235467) installed in the name of Mrs. Sangeeta Kataria
at House No. 2, Ground Floor, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, and the
same was exhibited as Ex. PW4/A (colly). He further stated that
the said telephone connection was installed on 20.03.2008 and
that it continued to stand in the name of Mrs. Sangeeta Kataria.
9.7 During cross-examination, PW-4 deposed that further
records pertaining to CA No. 2033235467 were available with
MTNL. He admitted that the telephone connection bearing No.
011-26172483 had remained unpaid since February 2017. He
further stated that, on the basis of the record brought by him, he
could not say whether any calls had been made or received
through the said telephone number. PW-4 further stated that the
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 QUAMAR Page No.18 of 61
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:23:21
+0530
status reflected at points A, B, and C in Ex. PW4/A was “DNP-1,”
which meant that payment had not been made. PW-4 further
deposed that he had been posted at the present office since May
2015 and had no personal knowledge regarding the said telephone
connection or the documents pertaining thereto.
9.8 PW-5 was the summoned witness, namely the Head Clerk
from the Property Tax Department, SDMC, R.K. Puram, who
brought the summoned record pertaining to the property tax of
Property No. Plot No. 2, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New
Delhi-110029. He produced copies of the house tax receipts for
the periods 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, which were marked as
Mark A (total four pages), though objection was raised
regarding the mode of proof. PW-5 deposed that, as per the
record, the property tax was being paid by Smt. Rani Devi, Smt.
Sangeeta Kataria, Smt. Anju Kursija, and Smt. Madhu. During
cross-examination by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, PW-5 deposed that
he had no personal knowledge regarding the payments made in
respect of Property No. Plot No. 2, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung
Enclave, New Delhi-110029. He admitted that the record brought
by him was a computer-generated copy. He further stated that he
was not aware whether a certificate under Section 65-B of the
Indian Evidence Act was mandatory in support of such computer-
generated record. PW-5 also admitted that the department did not
verify the ownership of the person depositing property tax in
respect of any property. During cross-examination by Defendant
No.1, PW-5 deposed that Smt. Rani Devi, Smt. Sangeeta Kataria,
Smt. Anju Kursija, and Smt. Madhu had applied for mutation of
the property in question; however, since complete ownership
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.19 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:23:26 +0530
documents could not be produced, the mutation application was
rejected on 27.11.2006. He further admitted that no ownership
documents were required for depositing property tax with SDMC.
He also admitted that no ownership documents had been filed by
the aforesaid persons while depositing property tax in respect of
the property in question. PW-5 further deposed that payment of
property tax by itself could not confirm ownership or possession
of the property. He further stated that since the year 2004,
property tax in respect of the said property had been computed on
the basis of self-assessment and that in the present case also, Smt.
Rani Devi, Smt. Sangeeta Kataria, Smt. Anju Kursija, and Smt.
Madhu had self-assessed the property tax. He lastly deposed that
the Property Tax Department/Assessment and Collection
Department of SDMC had never verified or scrutinized the
property tax relating to the property in question.
9.9 PW-6 was the summoned witness from Punjab and Sind
Bank, Roshanara Road Branch, Delhi. He deposed that he had
brought the record pertaining to the account statement of M/s
Neha Polymers, proprietorship concern of Mr. Hari Om Dutta,
bearing Account No. 03011600035750. The said account
statement reflected debit entry of Cheque No. 164161 dated
27.11.2007 for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- issued in favour of
Sh. Tej Beer Sharma. The said account statement was exhibited
as Ex. PW6/1 (colly), comprising five pages. During cross-
examination by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, PW-6 deposed that he
had been posted at the Roshanara Road Branch since May 2013
and that he had no personal knowledge regarding the payment of
the cheque in question.
Digitally signed by HALA CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.20 of 61 Date: QUAMAR 2026.07.07 17:23:31 +0530
9.10. PW-7 is the summoned witness i.e. Deputy Manager, State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. He deposed that he has brought the
copy of account statement dated 04.06.2007 to 31.03.2008 of
Rajiv Kumar, account No.10001739569 of cheque no. 35750
dated 29.06.2007 for Rs.5,63,000/- was never presented and
encashed in favour of Sh. Tej Beer Sharma, which is Ex.PW7/1
(colly) (running into 5 pages).
9.11 PW-8 was the Deputy Manager from the Cooperative
Bank, Prashant Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that he had brought the
copy of the account statement of Sh. Pradeep Kaushi bearing
Account No. 00040160006314 for the period from 01.06.2007 to
31.12.2007. He further deposed that Cheque Nos. 4333813 and
4333814 dated 29.06.2007 for amounts of Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs.
8,00,000/- respectively, allegedly issued in favour of Sh. Tej Beer
Sharma, were never presented for encashment. The said account
statement was exhibited as Ex. PW8/1 (colly), comprising five
pages.
9.12 PW-9 was the summoned witness, namely the Special
Assistant from Bank of Baroda, Asaf Ali Road Branch, Delhi. He
deposed that he had brought the copy of the account statement of
M/s Ganga Tourism, proprietorship concern of Sh. Prayag Vats,
bearing Account No. 00930400000123. The said statement
reflected that Cheque No. 996027 dated 29.06.2007 for an amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/- had been encashed in favour of Sh. Tej Beer
Sharma. The said account statement was exhibited as Ex. PW9/1.
During cross-examination by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, PW-9
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.21 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:23:35 +0530
deposed that he had been posted at the Bank of Baroda, Asaf Ali
Road Branch for the last four days and that he had no personal
knowledge regarding the payment of the cheque in question.
9.13 PW-10 was the summoned witness, namely the Manager
from UCO Bank, Lawrence Road, Delhi. He deposed that he had
brought the copy of the account statement of Sh. Prashant
Aggarwal bearing Account No. 09900100003805 and old
Account No. 12149 for the period from 01.03.2007 to 10.08.2007.
He further deposed that the said statement reflected Cheque No.
068182 dated 29.06.2007 for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and
Cheque No. 068183 dated 29.06.2007 for an amount of Rs.
7,00,000/- issued in favour of Tej Beer Sharma. The said account
statement was exhibited as Ex. PW1/10 (colly), comprising three
pages. PW-10 was not cross-examined despite opportunity being
granted to the defendants.
9.14 PW-11 was the summoned witness, namely the Office
Attendant from Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Budh Vihar, Delhi.
He deposed that he had brought the copy of the account statement
of Sh. Krishan bearing Account No. 022005003028 for the period
from 10.03.2006 to 12.05.2008. He further deposed that the said
statement reflected Cheque No. 567509 dated 29.06.2007 for an
amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- issued in favour of Tej Beer Sharma.
The said account statement was exhibited as Ex. PW11/1 (colly),
comprising three pages. The said witness was not cross-examined
despite opportunity being granted to the defendants.
9.15 Thereafter the plaintiff evidence stood closed on separate
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 QUAMAR Page No.22 of 61
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:23:39
+0530
statement of the plaintiff.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
10. Right to lead DE of Defendnat no:2 was closed vide order
dated 17.12.2025 as no evidence affidavit was filed. Therefore,
defendant evidence has been led on behalf of defendant
No.3 Prashant Aggarwal, who got examined himself as a witness
D3W1 and tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.D3W1/A.
10.1 D3W1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff. In his cross examination , the witness deposed that he
completed his MBA in the year 2007. He further stated that the
affidavit by way of evidence, Ex. D3W1/A, was drafted by his
counsel in consultation with his father, Sh. Niranjan Agarwal. He
stated that he did not remember the place where the affidavit was
attested or the date on which it was attested. He further deposed
that he might have signed the attesting register, but was not certain
about the same. The witness stated that he could not say with
certainty whether the plaintiffs had executed only a Power of
Attorney in favour of Rishi Prakash (defendant No.1). He further
stated that he could not confirm whether Rishi Prakash had
executed only a Power of Attorney in favour of Tejbeer (defendant
No.2). He admitted that the plaintiffs had not executed any sale
deed in his favour. He also stated that he could not say with
certainty whether Rishi Prakash had executed the Power of
Attorney in favour of Tejbeer solely on the basis of the Power of
Attorney executed by the plaintiffs in his favour. The witness
further deposed that he could not confirm whether Rishi Prakash
Digitally signed
by HALA
QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA Date: Page No.23 of 61
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:23:43
+0530
was merely the attorney holder of the plaintiffs and not the owner
of the suit property. He stated that he had not gone through his
affidavit by way of evidence before entering the witness box and
was not aware of its contents, though he volunteered that he was
aware of the facts of the present case. He further stated that he did
not know whether Rishi Prakash had executed any sale deed or
other title documents.
10.2 The witness stated that he did not know the exact date of
the sale deed relied upon by him, but stated that it was executed
sometime in the year 2008. He deposed that the sale deed was
executed near Qutub Minar. He further stated that he did not know
whether the suit property had earlier stood in the names of the
plaintiffs and volunteered that they had come to know about the
property through the market. Regarding inquiries into the title of
the property, the witness stated that usual inquiries were made,
but he was not aware of any specific inquiries as he had not
personally handled the transaction, which was dealt with by his
father. He similarly stated that although usual inquiries were made
regarding the ownership/title of the property, he was unaware of
any specific inquiry conducted with the office of the Sub-
Registrar. Explaining the expression “usual inquiries”, the witness
stated that such inquiries depended upon the person through
whom the property was introduced, namely the buyer or the seller,
and reiterated that he was not personally involved in the
transaction. He further volunteered that, being about 24 years of
age at the relevant time, it was his father who used to deal with
property transactions and, therefore, he was not aware as to how
the General Powers of Attorney in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.24 of 61
QUAMAR
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:23:47
+0530
2 had been verified by his father. He also stated that he had
brought the original sale deed referred to in paragraph 4 of his
affidavit. Lastly, the witness deposed that he did not remember
the private number or part number of the plot constituting the suit
property.
10.3 Then the witness brought the original sale deed
dated 29.06.2007 bearing registration No.6978 in book No.1,
Volume No.3789 on pages 91 to 105, the copy of which
is Ex.D3W1/PX1 (OSR).The witness deposed that they did not
obtain any written or oral confirmation from the plaintiffs to get
the alleged sale deed dated 29.06.2007 executed by Tejbir. He
stated that he did not know whether any written or oral
confirmation was obtained by defendant No.2 from the plaintiffs
since it was his father who was dealing with the property matters.
He further deposed that he did not have any personal knowledge
in regard to the property matters. He denied the suggestion that
the plaintiffs, vide four separate registered deeds of cancellation,
all dated 22.09.2004, had cancelled the General Power of
Attorney dated 09.01.2004 (registered on 02.09.2004) executed
in favour of defendant No.1. He further denied the suggestion that
the factum of cancellation of the said four GPAs dated 09.01.2004
(registered on 02.09.2004) was duly published in the newspaper
Veer Arjun on 30.11.2006. He also denied the suggestion that
upon cancellation of the GPAs dated 09.01.2004 (registered on
02.09.2004) executed in favour of defendant No.1, defendant
No.1 was not left with any right or authority and that, as a
consequence of such cancellation, the four separate GPAs dated
02.06.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.25 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:23:52 +0530
No.2 also stood cancelled.
10.4 The witness was shown the original sale deed Ex.
D3W1/PX1 and his attention was drawn to points A to B on page
2. On being asked whether he had seen the ownership documents
in favour of Tejbir Singh as mentioned in the sale deed, he stated
that he could not tell whether, at the time of execution of the said
sale deed, any title documents of Tejbir were checked and
confirmed by him. He denied the suggestion that Tejbir/defendant
No.2 was not the owner of the property and had no authority or
right to execute any sale deed or title documents on 29.06.2007.
He admitted that cheque No. 068182 dated 29.06.2007 drawn on
UCO Bank, Delhi, was deposited into the account of the plaintiffs.
10.5 On being asked whether, at the time of execution of the
sale deed in question, he had seen the original GPAs in favour of
Rishi Prakash and Tejbeer, the witness stated that since it was his
father who was dealing with the property, he along with his father
had seen the documents. He further stated that he knew Pradeep
Kaushik, Prayag Vats, Rajiv Kumar, Hari Om Dutt and Krishan
Kumar and that he came to know them when the present suit was
filed. He further deposed that he had duly checked the chain of
title documents.
10.6 On being asked whether he had verified the chain of
documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar, the witness
answered in the negative and volunteered that the verification
must have been done by his father. He denied the suggestion that
neither he nor his father had ever seen the original GPA in favour
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Digitally signed Page No.26 of 61
by HALA
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:23:56 +0530
of Rishi Prakash. He further stated that he had not filed any suit
for partition or possession. He deposed that he was not very sure
whether he had got the suit property demarcated from the Patwari
and stated that he did not have any document in that regard. He
denied the suggestion that defendant No.3 was not in physical
possession of the suit property. He further denied the suggestion
that since the property jointly owned by the plaintiffs measured
3750 sq. yards and was an undivided property, physical
possession could not have been obtained without filing a suit for
partition or possession by defendant No.3.
10.7 The witness further stated that he had all the original
documents pertaining to the suit property and had brought them
to the Court. He also stated that he was in possession of the
original GPAs in favour of Rishi Prakash and Tejbeer, though he
had not brought the same on that day and could produce them
after checking. The cross examination was then deferred. On the
NDOH on being asked whether, pursuant to his statement made
on 30.05.2026 that the original GPA in favour of Rishi Prakash
was in his possession, he had brought the same, the witness stated
that he had been asked to produce the original GPA between Rishi
Prakash and Tejbeer and had brought the same. On being asked
whether he was in possession of the original GPAs executed by
the plaintiffs in favour of Rishi Prakash, the witness answered in
the negative and volunteered that he had brought the certified
copy of one GPA executed by Ms. Madhu (plaintiff No.4) in
favour of Rishi Prakash, which was exhibited as Ex. D3W1/P2
(OSR).
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA by HALA QUAMAR Page No.27 of 61 QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07 17:24:01 +0530
10.8 On being asked whether he was aware if the plaintiffs had
been the owners of the suit property, the witness stated that the
names of the plaintiffs came to his knowledge for the first time
when the original documents were being checked at the time of
purchase of the property and that, after the suit was filed, the other
names came to his knowledge. He further stated that the
documents which he claimed to have checked were a whole bunch
of documents, but he could not tell the details thereof as it was a
very old matter. On being asked that his cross-examination had
been continuing since 07.02.2026 and whether he had not
checked the complete chain of documents since then, the witness
stated that he had been discussing the details with his father, but
as the property and the transaction had been honestly entered into
by them, he did not find any need to recheck the same.
10.9 On being asked to state the documents on the basis of
which the plaintiffs were owners of the suit property, the witness
stated that, as mentioned earlier, the property matters and the
transactions were majorly handled by his father and, therefore, he
was unable to answer the question with the specific names of the
documents. He further stated that the whole set of documents had
been produced before the Hon’ble Court for perusal.
10.10 On being asked whether it was correct that he had never
met the plaintiffs for any purpose whatsoever, the witness
answered in the affirmative.
10.11 On being asked what he meant by the expression “bona
fide purchaser” as mentioned in Ex. D3W1/A, the witness stated
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016
HALA QUAMAR
Page No.28 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:24:05 +0530
that the affidavit had been drafted under the usual format
available and such terminologies had been used. He further stated
that, to the best of his knowledge, bona fide meant an honest and
genuine purchaser. On being asked whether he was aware if the
consideration amount of Rs.13,63,200/- was mentioned in the sale
deed Ex. DW3/PX1, the witness stated that he could not recall as
it was an old matter and volunteered that whatever amount had
been paid had been duly mentioned in the sale deed. On being
confronted with the suggestion that the alleged sale deed Ex.
DW3/PX1 recorded payment of Rs.7,63,200/- in cash and asked
whether he was in possession of any receipt of the said amount,
the witness stated that the amount had been mentioned in the
property document, however, regarding the receipt, he could not
say anything with certainty. On being confronted with the
suggestion that the alleged sale deed Ex. DW3/PX1 recorded
payment of Rs.6,00,000/- through cheque No.068182 and asked
whether he was in possession of any bank statement to show that
the said amount had actually been transferred from his account to
the account of Tejbeer Sharma, the witness stated that the amount
had been mentioned in the property document, however,
regarding the receipt, he could not say anything with certainty. He
denied the suggestion that no such amounts were ever transferred
by him to Tejbeer Sharma as the entire alleged transaction was
sham and frivolous. He further denied the suggestion that he was
not in possession of the original GPAs executed by the plaintiffs
in favour of Sh. Rishi Prakash. On being asked whether it was
correct that prior to the execution of the alleged sale deed Ex.
D3W1/PX1 he was not aware about the execution of any
documents relating to the property in question, the witness statedDigitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.29 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:24:10 +0530
that, as he had said earlier, the whole chain of property documents
had been checked at the time of purchase. On being asked whether
it was correct that prior to the execution of the alleged sale deed
Ex. D3W1/PX1 he was neither the signatory nor the witness to
any documents relating to the property in question, the witness
answered in the affirmative. On being asked in which capacity
Mr. Tejbeer Sharma claimed to have sold the plot in question to
him, the witness stated that while checking the original
documents, they noticed that the GPA was in favour of Tejbeer
Sharma and, as stated earlier, the required due diligence had been
done at that time. However, he stated that the specific details
could not be recalled.On being asked what was the status of
Tejbeer Sharma vide the GPA dated 02.06.2004 qua the plot in
question, the witness stated that, as said earlier, the original
documents had been checked, but the specific details could not be
recalled. On being asked whether he would like to answer the
previous question after going through the GPA dated 02.06.2004,
the witness stated that he could check the GPA, but reiterated that
he was not conversant with the technicalities. At that stage, the
witness checked his own record and took out the original GPA
dated 02.06.2004, the photocopy whereof was taken on record as
Ex. D3W1/PX3 (OSR), and stated that as per clause (iii) on page
2 of the document, Sh. Tejbeer Sharma had been authorized to sell
the said property and that the complete clause (iii) was self-
explanatory. On being asked whether the status of Mr. Tejbeer
Sharma under Ex. D3W1/PX3 was that of an owner or only a
Power of Attorney holder, the witness stated that the answer had
already been given in the previous question, namely, that Tejbeer
Sharma was authorized to sell the said property. On being further
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.30 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:24:14 +0530
asked whether Tejbeer Sharma had been authorized to sell the said
property as the owner thereof or only as a Power of Attorney
holder, the witness stated that he was a Power of Attorney holder.
The witness denied the suggestion that the sale deed Ex.
DW3/PX1 had been executed by Mr. Tejbeer Sharma without any
right, power or authority to execute the same. He further denied
the suggestion that defendant No.1, on 02.06.2004, had no right,
power or authority to execute the GPA or any other document in
respect of the suit property. He denied the suggestion that Ex.
DW3/PX1 was illegal and liable to be declared null and void. He
also denied the suggestion that the GPA dated 02.06.2004 had
been executed without the consent and knowledge of the
plaintiffs. He further denied the suggestion that the registration of
the GPA dated 09.01.2004 by defendant No.1 on 02.09.2004 was
without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. He denied
the suggestion that the registration of the GPA dated 09.01.2004
on 02.09.2004 had been cancelled on 22.09.2004 vide registered
deeds of cancellation. He further denied the suggestion that he
was aware of the cancellation of the GPA dated 09.01.2004 before
the execution of the alleged sale deed Ex. D3W1/PX1. He also
denied the suggestion that defendants No.1 and 2 were aware of
the cancellation of the GPA dated 09.01.2004 before the execution
of the alleged sale deed Ex. D3W1/PX1. He denied the suggestion
that he was not in possession of the plot in question. He further
denied the suggestion that he was aware of the publication in the
newspaper Veer Arjun on 30.11.2006 regarding the cancellation
of the GPA dated 09.01.2004. He also denied the suggestion that
the GPA dated 09.01.2004 was revocable on the ground that it was
without consideration and, therefore, could be unilaterally
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.31 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:24:18 +0530
revoked and cancelled without notice to anyone/defendant No.1.
Lastly, he denied the suggestion that all his claims qua the plot in
question were false, illegal and without any basis, and denied the
suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
12. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments.
13. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused
the record of the case meticulously.
FINDINGS ON ISSUES
Issue No.1.Whether the suit has not been properly valued for
the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD
14. The burden to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
However, no evidence has been brought on record to show that
the suit has been undervalued or that the court fee paid by the
Plaintiffs are insufficient.
15. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking declaration
that the impugned sale deed is null and void, along with the relief
of permanent injunction. In the considered opinion of this Court,
relief of permanent injunction is merely incidental to the principal
relief of declaration in the present case.
16. In the landmark judgment of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool
Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors (2010) 12 SCC 112, Hon’ble
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.32 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:24:22 +0530
Supreme Court held that where a non-executant of an instrument
seeks a declaration that a sale deed is null, void, illegal, or not
binding upon him, he is required to pay a fixed court fee as
prescribed for declaratory relief and is not required to pay ad
valorem court fee on the value of the sale consideration
mentioned in the document.
17. In the present case, the Plaintiffs are not seeking
cancellation of a document executed by him but is seeking a
declaration that the impugned sale deed is null and void and not
binding upon his rights. Therefore, the suit has been properly
valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.
18. The defendants have further contended that the Plaintiffs
have sought only the relief of declaration without seeking the
consequential relief of possession and, therefore, the suit is
undervalued and not maintainable. However, the defendants have
failed to place any material on record to establish that the plaintiff
was not in possession of the suit property on the date of institution
of the suit.
19. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs have led cogent evidence to
demonstrate his possession over the suit property. The Plaintiffs
have summoned and proved records from the Municipal
Corporation, electricity department and telephone department
showing the existence of municipal, electricity and telephone
connections in respect of the suit property. The said documents
lend corroboration to the plaintiff’s claim of being in possession
of the suit property. The defendants have neither produced any
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.33 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:24:27 +0530
documentary evidence nor led any convincing oral evidence to
show that the Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property.
20. In the absence of any evidence showing that the plaintiff
was not in possession, the contention that the suit ought to have
been filed with the relief of possession is without merit. Since the
Plaintiffs have been able to establish his possession over the suit
property, the relief of declaration coupled with incidental relief
injunction is maintainable in the present form and has been
properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.
21. Accordingly, the defendants have failed to discharge the
onus cast upon them. This issue is, therefore, decided against the
defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No.2. Whether the registration of GPA dated 09.01.2004
on 02.09.2004 was valid and proper?OPD
22. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendants.
However, Defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex parte in the year
2013 and his defence was struck off. Further, right of Defendants
No. 2 to lead defence evidence was also closed vide order dated
20.09.2025. No defendant apart from Defendnat no:3 entered the
witness box.
23. The controversy pertains to the legality and validity of the
said registration. Only Defendant No.2 and Defendant no:3 has
filed WS wherein Defendnat no:2 pleaded that the registration
was validly carried out in accordance with law
Digitally but no evidence
signed
by HALA
HALA QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 QUAMAR Date: Page No.34 of 61
2026.07.07
17:24:31 +0530
was led with respect to the same. .
24. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the registration
was illegal, void and not binding upon them. It was argued by Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiffs that the General Power of Attorney
dated 09.01.2004, which was allegedly registered on 02.09.2004,
did not bear the signatures of the Plaintiffs and that they had
neither appeared before the Sub-Registrar nor admitted execution
of the said document. As such, according to the plaintiffs, being
the executants of the said General Power of Attorney, their
presence and admission of execution before the registering
authority were essential for a valid registration.
25. In support of their case, Witness Sangeeta Kataria, one the
plaintiffs (also SPA holder of all remaining plaintiffs) entered
the witness box as PW1 and deposed in consonance with the
averments made in the plaint. Nothing substantial could be
elicited in the cross-examination so as to discredit her testimony.
The plaintiff denied the suggestion that she, along with rest of the
plaintiffs, had appeared before the office of the Sub-Registrar for
registration of the General Power of Attorney and other
documents. She further denied having executed or admitted
execution of the said documents before the registering authority.
Plaintiff’s testimony on this aspect remained unshaken and no
material contradiction or inconsistency could be brought on
record by the defendants.
26. On the other hand, although it is the case of the defendant
in the written statement that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.35 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:24:36 +0530
the registration proceedings, had themselves arranged the stamp
papers and other requisite documents, and that the General Power
of Attorney dated 09.01.2004 was executed and registered in their
presence, the said assertions have remained completely unproved.
Nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same.
Only Defendant no:3 led evidence whereby only his evidence by
way of affidavit was tendered in examnation in chief. Upon cross
examination Defendnat no:3 remained largely unsure of the
things that had been done before the property was allegedly sold
to him by defendnat no:2.
27. Significantly, the defendants did not examine any official
from the office of the Sub-Registrar to prove that the plaintiffs
had appeared before the registering authority and had admitted
execution of the General Power of Attorney at the time of
registration. No other independent witness or documentary
evidence has been produced to establish the due execution and
valid registration of the document in question.
28. The burden of proving a fact lies upon the party asserting
it. Since the defendants have asserted that the registration dated
02.09.2004 was validly effected in the presence of and with the
knowledge of the plaintiff, the burden lay upon them to prove the
same specially in view of the fact that as argued by the plaintiff
that the said GPA doesn’t bear the signatures of the plaintiff on
registration. Therefore, mere averments in the written statement,
unsupported by admissible evidence, cannot be treated as proof
of the facts pleaded.
Digitally signed
by HALA
QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA Date:
Page No.36 of 61
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:24:40
+0530
29. In view of the unrebutted testimony of the plaintiffs and
the complete failure of the defendants to adduce reliable evidence
in support of their defence, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the defendants have failed to discharge the burden cast upon
them to prove that the General Power of Attorney dated
09.01.2004 was validly registered on 02.09.2004.
30. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No.3. Whether the GPA dated 09.01.2004 executed by the
plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 was revocable and was
validly cancelled by the plaintiff on 22.09.2004?OPP
31. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have placed on record four registered Deed of
Cancellation whereby the General Power of Attorney dated
09.01.2004 was revoked. The said document has been duly
tendered, exhibited and thus proved in accordance with law.
32. The defendants on the other hand have challenged the
validity of the said cancellation primarily on two grounds. Firstly,
it has been contended that the General Power of Attorney in
question could not have been unilaterally revoked by the plaintiff.
Secondly, it has been argued that no notice of revocation was ever
served upon Defendant No. 1 and, therefore, the alleged
cancellation is ineffective in the eyes of law.
33. It is an admitted fact that an unregistered GPA dated
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA by HALA
QUAMAR Page No.37 of 61
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:24:45 +0530
09.01.20204 was executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant
No.1. Now in order to decide whether the same was unilaterally
revocable and thus validly canceled by the Plaintiff on
22.09.2004, it is important to determine whether the said GPA
was coupled with interest.
34. Plaintiffs have pleaded in paragraph 3 of the plaint that
they had earlier executed a General Power of Attorney dated
09.01.2004 in favour of Defendant No. 1 in good faith and
without any consideration. It has further been averred that neither
the said General Power of Attorney nor the Will executed in
favour of Defendant No. 1 involved any sale consideration and
that the documents were executed solely on account of the trust
reposed by the plaintiffs in Defendant No. 1.
35. Defendant No. 1, in whose favour the General Power of
Attorney is alleged to have been executed, did not file any written
statement and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated
16.02.2018. Consequently, the specific averments made by the
plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 remained unrebutted by
Defendant no.1.
36. WS was filed only on behalf of Defendant No. 2 and 3. In
reply to paragraph 3 of the plaint, Defendant No. 2 merely stated
that the contents thereof were wrong and denied. It was further
pleaded that the plaintiffs had executed the documents in favour
of Defendant No. 1 in accordance with law and had appeared
before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution and registration.
However, there is no specific pleading that the General Power of
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.38 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:24:49 +0530
Attorney dated 09.01.2004 was coupled with interest. No
particulars whatsoever regarding the alleged consideration have
been disclosed. The denial by Defendant No. 2 is thus vague and
evasive. Order VIII Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure require a defendant to deal specifically with each
allegation of fact made in the plaint. A mere general denial is
insufficient. It is a settled principle of law that an evasive denial
amounts to an admission of the facts not specifically traversed.
Further, paragraph no:3 was not replied by Defendant no:3 in his
WS.
37. In the present case, if the defendants intended to assert
that the General Power of Attorney was executed for
consideration or was coupled with any interest in favour of
Defendant No. 1, it was incumbent upon them to specifically
plead the nature, source and quantum of such consideration. No
such plea has been taken. The pleadings are conspicuously silent
regarding any consideration passing from Defendant No. 1 to the
plaintiff. Furthermore, no evidence has been led by any of the
defendants to establish the existence of such consideration.
38. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the provisions of Section
201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which provides as under:
“201. Termination of agency.– An agency is
terminated by the principal revoking his authority, or
by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or
by the business of the agency being completed; or by
either the principal or agent dying or becoming of
unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated
an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the
time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors.”
Digitally signed
by HALA
QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA Date:
Page No.39 of 61
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:24:54
+0530
39. Section 201 therefore clearly contemplates that where the
principal revokes the authority and the agency is not otherwise
protected by law, the agency stands terminated.
40. However, this general principle is subject to statutory
exceptions. Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 creates
one such exception, wherein it is provided that where the agent
himself has an interest in the property forming the subject-matter
of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express
contract to the contrary, be terminated to the prejudice of such
interest.
41. Section 202 of the Contract Act reads as under:
“Section 202. Termination of agency where
agent has an interest in subject-matter.–
Where the agent has himself an interest in
the property which forms the subject-
matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in
the absence of an express contract, be
terminated to the prejudice of such
interest.”
42. The principle underlying Section 202 is that where the
agency is coupled with interest, the authority becomes irrevocable
to the extent that its termination would adversely affect the
agent’s vested interest in the subject matter. In such cases, the
authority is not a mere agency but is supported by consideration
or creates a proprietary or beneficial interest in favour of the
agent.
43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Digitally signed
by HALA
HALA QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Page No.40 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:24:58 +0530
Rajasthan and Ors. vs Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77 held-
“Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the
provisions of the Indian Contract Act as also
the Power of Attorney Act is valid. A power of
attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed
by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his
behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is
coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in
exercise of his power under such power of attorney
only acts in place of the donor subject of course to
the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He
cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit.
He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity
or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and
the donee.”
44. Therefore, statutorily, this follows from section 202 of the
Indian Contract Act which states that where the agent himself has
‘interest in the subject matter of the agency’, the agency cannot
be terminated to the prejudice of such agent’s interest. However,
the same is not the case herein.
45. Now, once it is held that the General Power of Attorney
was not coupled with interest, the same was inherently revocable
at the instance of the principal. Section 201 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872 expressly provides that an agency may be terminated
by the principal revoking his authority. Therefore, the plaintiff
was fully competent in law to revoke the authority conferred upon
Defendant No. 1 by executing the registered Deed of
Cancellation. The objection regarding unilateral revocation is,
therefore, devoid of merit.
46. Pertinently, the court is also conscious of the fact that
section 204 of the Indian Contract Act makes even a revocable
power of attorney irrevocable when suchDigitally
authority has been
signed
by HALA
HALA QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 QUAMAR Date: Page No.41 of 61
2026.07.07
17:25:03 +0530
exercised partly. When authority under a power of attorney has
been partly exercised, subsequent revocation of power of attorney
would not preclude the agent from carrying out further activities
as authorized under the said power of attorney.
47. Now since the said GPA was unilaterally revocable at the
instance of the plaintiff. Therefore, the protection contemplated
under Section 204 would be available only to the extent of acts
lawfully undertaken pursuant to a valid authority and would not
confer any independent or perpetual right in favour of the
defendants in respect of the suit property which was subject
matter of the said GPA in question.
48. In order to look into the extent of acts lawfully undertaken
pursuant to a valid authority, it is seen that although a general
Power of Attorney dated 09.01.2004 was validly revoked on
22.09.2004, however, before such revocation, Defendant No. 1
had already executed another GPA in favour of Defendant No. 2
on 02.06.2004. It is also pertinent to note that on 02.06.2004, the
parent GPA dated 09.01.2004 was admittedly unregistered, as it
came to be allegedly registered only on 02.09.2004. Therefore,
the next question which arises for consideration is whether the
protection of Section 204 of the Indian Contract Act would apply
in the facts of the present case, i.e., whether the act allegedly
performed by Defendant No. 1 in appointing Defendant No. 2 was
an act lawfully undertaken pursuant to a valid authority.
49. At this stage, provisions of Section 17 of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908, are reproduced which lays down as
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Digitally signed Page No.42 of 61
HALA by HALA
QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:25:07 +0530
follows:
17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.
(1)The following documents shall be registered, if the
property to which they relate is situate in a district in
which, and if they have been executed on or after the date
on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration
Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the
Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes
into force, namely,
(a)…………………………..
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or
operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish,
whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest,
whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred
rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;……
50. Further, Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act,
1871lays down as under:
Section 49. Effect of non-registration of documents
required to be registered.
– No document required by section 17 [or by any
provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of
1882),] [Added by Act 21 of 1929, Section 10.] to be
registered shall
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein,
or
(b)confer any power to adopt, or
(c)be received as evidence of any transaction affecting
such property or conferring such power,unless it has
been registered:
[Provided that an unregistered document affecting
immovable property and required by this Act, or the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be
registered may be received as evidence of a contract
in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of
the [Specific Relief Act, 1877] [Added by Act 21 of
1929, Section 10.], [* * *] [The words “or as evidence
of part performance of a contract for the purposes of
section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of
1882)” omitted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 6 (w.e.f.
24.9.2001).] or as evidence of any collateral
transaction not required to be effected by registered
instrument.]
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA by HALA
QUAMAR Page No.43 of 61
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:25:11 +0530
51. Moreover, to answer this question, judgment rendered in
Shakeel Ahmed vs Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1526 by Hon’ble Supreme Court assumes significance. The
relevant para reads as follows:
“Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to
be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in
the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact
remains that no title could be transferred with respect to
immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered
Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered
General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908
clearly provides that a document which requires
compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer
any right, much less a legally enforceable right to
approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these
documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of
Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that
the respondent would have acquired title over the
property in question. At best, on the basis of the
registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed
relief of specific performance in appropriate
proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to
sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Law is well settled
that no right, title or interest in immovable property
can be conferred without a registered document.”
52. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the protection under Section 204 of the
Indian Contract Act cannot be invoked in favour of the defendants
in the facts of the present case since the the GPA dated 02.06.2004
executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 was not
registered in terms of the mandate of Section 17 of the
Registration Act. Therefore no valid right or interest of any
property stood devolved / transferred onto Defendant No.2.
Moreover, it is also clear that the title in a property cannot be
transferred through GPA. Now, section 204 protects only those
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.44 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:25:15 +0530
acts which have been lawfully done by an agent in exercise of a
valid authority. The said provision does not elevate every act of
an agent into an irrevocable transaction nor does it validate an act
which otherwise does not create any legal right in immovable
property.
53. Therefore, in view of the admissions of Defendants and
upon analysis of the law applicable to the facts of the present case,
it can be safely deduced that the General Power of Attorney
(GPA) in question was executed without any consideration and
did not create any interest in favour of the defendant No.1 in the
subject matter of the agency. In the absence of any such
consideration or creation of interest, the instrument does not fall
within the ambit of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Moreover, the benefit of Section 204 can also not be granted as
already discussed. Accordingly, the GPA would be governed by
the general rule under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872, which provides that an agency is terminable by the
principal by revocation of authority where the agency is not
coupled with interest.
54. Secondly, the argument raised by the defendants that in
terms of Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act, the revocation of
agency would not take effect as against the agent until the same
became known to him, also does not help their case. Plaintiffs
have placed on record a publication in the newspaper “Veer
Arjun” dated 30.11.2006 whereby a public notice was issued
informing the general public regarding the
cancellation/revocation of the General Power of Attorney and
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.45 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:25:20 +0530
cautioning all concerned against entering into any transaction on
the basis thereof. The said publication has remained unrebutted
and further evidences the intention of the plaintiffs to make the
revocation known to the public at large. Therefore in view of
Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act the act of the Plaintiffs of
publically proclaiming the revocation of the GPA in question by
way of a registered cancellation deed in a newspaper publication
is sufficient notice to the Defendant No.1.
55. In these circumstances, the contention of the defendants
that the revocation was ineffective for want of notice cannot be
accepted. The public notice published in the newspaper
sufficiently established communication of the revocation. The
defendants have failed to produce any evidence to show that they
acted bona fide without notice of the cancellation or that any right
had accrued in their favour prior to such revocation.
56. Therefore, it is clear that the GPA dated 09.01.2004
executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 was
revocable and was validly canceled by the plaintiff on 22.09.2004
validly published in newspaper on 30.11.2006. Hence Issue no.3
is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No.4. Whether the GPA dated 02.06.2004 executed by
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on the basis of
GPA dated 09.01.2004 is fraudulent and illegal?OPP
57. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff. As
already noted that Defendant No.1 acted on the strength of an
Digitally signed
by HALA
QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA Date:
Page No.46 of 61
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:25:27
+0530
unregistered GPA dated 09.01.2004 and executed another GPA in
favour of Defendant No.2 on 02.06.2004.
58. As already discussed while deciding Issue No. 2, Section
17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 mandates registration of
instruments creating or affecting rights in immovable property,
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed vs Syed
Akhlaq Hussain, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526 has categorically
held that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be
conferred on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or an
unregistered General Power of Attorney. Thus, it is no longer res
integra that title in an immovable property cannot be transferred
by way of a General Power of Attorney.
59. In view of the above, the act of Defendant No.1 of
executing the GPA dated 02.06.2004 was therefore not to confer
any right, title or interest but of mere delegation of power or
creation of sub agency. Therefore the execution of GPA dated
02.06.2004 has to be understood in the context of creation of sub
agency only.
60. Perusal of the GPA dated 09.01.2004 reveals that Clause 3
thereof authorized Defendant No.1 to enter into agreements to
sell, receive earnest money and execute agreements to sell on
behalf of the plaintiff. Further, under Clause 10, Defendant No.1
was empowered to appoint any other general or special attorney
and to delegate all or any of the powers conferred upon him under
the said GPA. However, a perusal of the GPA dated 02.06.2004
executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 reveals
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.47 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:25:32 +0530
that Defendant No.1 conferred powers onto Defendant No.2
which were beyond the scope of the authority originally granted
to him under the GPA dated 09.01.2004. Perusal of the GPA dated
02.06.2004 shows that Defendant No.2 was, inter alia, authorized
to execute sale deeds and to receive the entire sale consideration
amount in respect of the suit property. Such powers are
conspicuously absent from the GPA dated 09.01.2004 executed
by the plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1.
61. Nothing could be elicited from the testimony of PW-1,
nor has any evidence been led by the defendants, to establish that
the plaintiff, being the principal, had expressly or impliedly
consented to the creation of a sub-agency containing powers
wider than those originally conferred upon Defendant No.1.
There is no material on record to show that the plaintiff had
authorized Defendant No.1 to delegate powers which he himself
did not possess under the GPA dated 09.01.2004.
62. Therefore, even assuming that Defendant No.1 was
otherwise competent to appoint Defendant No.2 as a sub-agent,
the authority delegated under the GPA dated 02.06.2004, insofar
as it purported to empower Defendant No.2 to execute sale deeds
and receive the entire sale consideration, has not been shown to
be traceable to any authority conferred by the plaintiff.
Consequently, the defendants have failed to establish that such
acts were within the lawful scope of the authority originally
granted by the plaintiff under the GPA dated 09.01.2004.
63. In view of the above discussions, and as already discussed
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.48 of 61
Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:25:37
+0530
hereinabove, title in an immovable property cannot be transferred
through a GPA. Further, there is nothing on record to show that
Defendant No.1 was authorized, with the consent of the principal
i.e. the plaintiffs, to create a sub-agency beyond the scope of his
own authority under the GPA dated 09.01.2004. Accordingly, the
GPA dated 02.06.2004 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of
Defendant No.2 on the basis of the GPA dated 09.01.2004 is held
to be illegal and invalid. Consequently, Issue No.4 is decided in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants
Issue No.5. Whether the defendant No.2 was competent to
execute the sale deed dated 02.07.2007 in favour of defendant
No.3 on the strength of GPA dated 02.06.2004?OPD
64. From the case record, it is evident that in the issue no: 5
the date of the sale deed executed by defendant no:2 in favour of
defendant no:3 has inadvertently been mentioned as 02.07.2007
by the Ld. Predecessor. Accordingly, the issue is read as follows:
Issue no: 5. “Whether Defendant No.2 was competent to execute
the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 in favour of Defendant No.3 on
the strength of GPA dated 02.06.2004? OPD”
65. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendants.
Before analyzing whether Defendant No.2 was competent to
execute the sale deed in favour of Defendant No.3, it is necessary
to examine the nature and extent of the authority, if any, vested in
Defendant No.2. As already discussed while deciding Issue No.4,
the GPA dated 02.06.2004 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour
of Defendant No.2 could not transfer any title in the suit property
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.49 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:25:41 +0530
in favour of Defendant No.2. It has also been held that the alleged
sub-agency created in favour of Defendant No.2 has not been
proved to be valid, as there is nothing on record to show that
Defendant No.1 was authorized by the principal to delegate
powers beyond the scope of the authority originally conferred
upon him under the GPA dated 09.01.2004.
66. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of arguments that a
valid sub-agency had come into existence in favour of Defendant
No.2, it has already been held while deciding Issue No.3 that the
GPA dated 09.01.2004 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of
Defendant No.1 stood validly revoked on 22.09.2004 which was
published in the newspaper on 30.11.2006. Consequently, by
operation of Section 210 of the Indian Contract Act, any authority
claimed by Defendant No.2 through Defendant No.1 also stood
terminated.
67. Further, a perusal of the sale deed dated 29.06.2007
executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 shows
that Defendant No.2 represented himself to be a sole and absolute
owner of the suit property on the strength of the aforesaid GPA,
which claim is unsustainable in law for the reasons already
discussed. It is a settled position that no person can confer a better
title than what he himself possesses. Since Defendant No.2
neither acquired any title in the suit property nor possessed any
subsisting authority on 29.06.2007, he was not competent to
execute the sale deed in favour of Defendant No.3.
68. Accordingly, Issue No.5 is decided in favour of the
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Digitally signed Page No.50 of 61
by HALA
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:25:46 +0530
plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No.6. Whether the sale deed dated 02.07.2007 is
fraudulent, illegal and liable to be cancelled?OPP
69. From the case record, it is evident that in the issue no: 5
the date of the sale deed has inadvertently been mentioned as
02.07.2007 by the Ld. Predecessor. Accordingly, the issue is read
as follows:
Issue No.6. “Whether the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 is
fraudulent, illegal and liable to be cancelled?OPP”
70. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. As
already discussed in the preceding issues, Defendant No.2 was
not competent to execute the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 in favour
of Defendant No.3 for want of valid title or subsisting authority.
71. Now, in order to determine whether the said Sale Deed
dated 29.06.2007 is liable to be cancelled, one another important
aspect requires consideration, namely, whether Defendant No.3 is
a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the defects in
the title and authority of Defendant No.2. The rights, if any,
claimed by Defendant No.3 flow entirely from the Sale Deed
dated 29.06.2007 executed by Defendant No.2. Therefore, it
becomes necessary to examine whether Defendant No.3 had
notice, actual or constructive, of the revocation of the GPA dated
09.01.2004 and the consequent termination of the authorityDigitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 QUAMAR Page No.51 of 61
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:25:51
+0530
claimed by Defendant No.2, or whether he had acted bona fide
after making reasonable enquiries regarding the title and authority
of the transferor.
72. The determination of this question assumes significance
because a person claiming to be a bona fide purchaser must
establish that he acted in good faith, for valuable consideration
and without notice of any prior defect in title or absence of
authority in the transferor. It is only upon examination of these
aspects that the Court can conclusively determine whether the
Sale Deed dated 29.06.2007 is liable to be canceled and declared
ineffective against defendnat no:3.
73. While discussing the concept and duties of “bonafide
purchaser” the Hon’ble Supreme court in Manjit Singh and Anr.
Vs. Darshan Devi and Anr. 2024 (SC) 919 has discussed the
following:
11. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act upon which strong
reliance is sought to be placed has been interpreted by this
Court in “R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul
Wahab 2000 (6) SCC 402 wherein this Court held as
follows:-
“14. Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to the extent
it is relevant, reads:
“19. Relief against parties and persons claiming under them
by subsequent title. – Except as otherwise provided by this
Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be
enforced against-
(a) either party thereto;
(b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising
subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value
who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of
the original contract;
(c)-(e) … … …
As can be seen from Sections 19(a) and (b) extracted above
specific performance of a contract can be enforced against
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 QUAMAR Page No.52 of 61
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:25:56
+0530
(a) either party thereto; and (b) any person claiming under
him by a title arising subsequent to the contract, except a
transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and
without notice of the original contract. Section 19(b) protects
the bona fide purchaser in good faith for value without notice
of the original contract. This protection is in the nature of
exception to the general rule. Hence, the onus of proof of
good faith is on the purchaser who takes the plea that he is
an innocent purchaser. Good faith is a question of fact to be
considered and decided on the
facts of each case. Section 52 of the Penal Code emphasises
due care and attention in relation to good faith. In the
General Clauses Act emphasis is laid on honesty. 15. Notice
is defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. It may
be actual where the party has actual knowledge of the fact or
constructive. “A person is said not have notice” of a fact when
he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention
from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or
gross negligence, he would have known it.
Explanation II of said Section 3 reads: “Explanation II-Any
person acquiring any immovable property or any share or
interest in any such property shall be deemed to have notice
of the title if any, of any person who is for the time being in
actual possession thereof.” Section 3 was amended by the
Amendment Act of 1929 in relation to the definition of
“notice”. The definition has been amended and supplemented
by three explanations, which settle the law in several
matters5 of great importance. For the immediate purpose
Explanation II is relevant. It states that actual possession is
notice of the title of the person in possession. Prior to the
amendment there had been some uncertainty because of
divergent views expressed by various High Courts in relation
to the actual possession as notice of title. A person may enter
the property in one capacity and having a kind of interest. But
subsequently while continuing in possession of the property
his capacity or interest may change. A person entering the
property as Tenant later may become usufructuary
mortgagee or may be agreement holder to purchase the same
property or may be some other interest is created in his
favour subsequently. Hence, with reference to subsequent
purchaser it is essential that he should make an inquiry as
to the title or interest of the person in actual possession as on
the date when the sale transaction was made in his favour.
The actual possession of a person itself is deemed or
constructive notice of the title if any, of a person who is for
the time being in actual possession thereof. A subsequent
purchaser has to make inquiry as to further interest, nature of
possession and title under which the person was continuing
in possession on the date of purchase of the property.”
Digitally signed by HALA QUAMAR HALA CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Date: Page No.53 of 61 QUAMAR 2026.07.07 17:26:00 +0530
12. The aforesaid decision of this Court makes it clear that
Section 19 (b) of the Act, 1963 is an exception from the
general rule and the onus is on the subsequent purchaser to
prove that he purchased the property in good faith and also
bona fide purchaser for value.”
74. Now, as already discussed in the aforementioned issues,
the plaintiff had given due notice of the revocation of the GPA
dated 09.01.2004 through publication in the newspaper on
30.11.2006 well before the date of execution of the sale deed in
question . The said publication constituted notice to the public at
large regarding the revocation of the authority earlier granted in
favour of Defendant No.1. Furthermore, as per the mandate of S.
3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the act of the Plaintiffs of
registration of cancellation deed dated 22.09.2004 also stood as a
deemed notice to the Defendant No.3, who subsequently acquired
rights in the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have
successfully discharged their initial burden of proving that
Defendant no.3 had the notice and therefore did not enter into sale
in good faith.
75. The onus thereafter shifted upon Defendant No.3 to
establish that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice. However, Defendant No.3 has failed to bring on record
any cogent evidence to establish that he had purchased the suit
property in good faith and without notice of the defects in the title
or authority of Defendant No.2.
76. Significantly, by the time the sale deed dated 29.06.2007
was executed, the revocation of the GPA dated 09.01.2004 had
already been effected. Thus, even otherwise, Defendant No.3
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.54 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:26:04 +0530
cannot claim that he was unaware of the revocation of the
authority under which Defendant No.2 purportedly acted.
77. Moreover, as already discussed while deciding Issue
No.1, the plaintiffs have successfully proved their possession over
the suit property. Therefore, Defendant No.3 was also under an
obligation to conduct due diligence and make necessary inquiries
regarding the nature of possession, title and interest of the person
who was in actual possession of the property on the date of the
alleged purchase. There is nothing on record to show that
Defendant No.3 made any such inquiry from the plaintiff or
otherwise verified the authority of Defendant No.2 to transfer the
suit property or even made bare attempts to seek recovery of
possession of the suit property.
78. Defendant No.3, in his cross-examination, deposed that
no written or oral confirmation from the plaintiffs was obtained
for execution of the alleged sale deed dated 29.06.2007 by
defendant No.2. He further stated that he did not know whether
any such written or oral confirmation had been obtained by
defendant No.2 from the plaintiffs, as it was his father who was
dealing with the property matters. He also deposed that he was
only about 24 years of age at the relevant time and, therefore, was
not aware as to how the GPAs in favour of defendants No.1 and 2
had been verified by his father. The witness further stated that he
could not tell whether, at the time of execution of the sale deed,
any title documents of defendant No.2 had been checked and
verified by him. However, he also deposed that he had duly
checked the chain of title documents, while voluntarily adding
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.55 of 61
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:26:08 +0530
that the verification must have been carried out by his father. He
further stated that he had not filed any suit for partition or
possession in respect of the suit property. Although the witness
deposed that he was in possession of all the original documents
pertaining to the suit property and had brought them to the Court,
when specifically asked whether he was in possession of the
original GPA executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant
No.1, he answered in the negative and volunteered that he had
only the certified copy of one GPA executed by plaintiff No.4 in
favour of defendant No.1. The witness also stated that he could
not recall the consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed as
it was an old matter. When questioned as to whether he was in
possession of any receipt evidencing the alleged cash payment
recorded in the sale deed, he stated that he could not say anything
with certainty regarding the receipt. Likewise, when asked
whether he was in possession of any bank statement to show that
the amount of ₹6,00,000/-, alleged to have been paid through
cheque No.068182, had in fact been transferred, he didn’t state
anything with certainty in that regard. The witness further
checked the original GPA dated 02.06.2004 from his own record
and deposed that, as per the said document, defendant No.2 was
only a Power of Attorney holder and had been authorized to sell
the property.
79. Therefore, even from the cross-examination of defendant
No.3, it is evident that he had no personal knowledge of the
verification of the title documents and repeatedly stated that the
entire transaction had been handled by his father. Although he
claimed that the chain of title documents had been verified, he
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Digitally signed Page No.56 of 61
HALA by HALA
QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:26:13 +0530
was unable to state what documents were verified or whether the
title documents of defendant No.2 had in fact been checked before
execution of the sale deed. He was also unable to recall the
consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed and could not
produce or confirm the existence of any receipt for the alleged
cash payment or any bank statement evidencing payment of
₹6,00,000/- by cheque. Further, despite initially claiming that he
was in possession of all the original documents pertaining to the
suit property, he admitted that he was not in possession of the
original General Powers of Attorney executed by the plaintiffs in
favour of defendant No.1 and could produce only a certified copy
of one such GPA executed by plaintiff No.4. These admissions
cast serious doubt on the extent of due diligence allegedly
undertaken by defendant No.3 prior to the purchase of the suit
property. Consequently, his plea that he is a bona fide purchaser
for value without notice does not inspire confidence.
80. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff also merits consideration. It has been argued that if
Defendant No.3 was genuinely a bona fide purchaser for value, it
remains unexplained as to why the original title documents
relating to the suit property continue to remain in the possession
of the plaintiff. Equally significant is the fact that despite alleging
that he had acquired rights in the suit property through Defendant
No.2, Defendant No.3 has not initiated any proceedings against
Defendant No.2 alleging fraud or misrepresentation despite
gaining knowledge about the version of the Plaintiffs by way of
the present suit. The conduct of Defendant No.3 is therefore not
consistent with that of a bona fide purchaser who has allegedly
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 by HALA Page No.57 of 61
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:26:17 +0530
been deceived by his vendor.
81. Accordingly, this Court holds that Defendant No.3 cannot
claim the protection available to a bona fide purchaser for value
without notice. Consequently, the Sale Deed dated 29.06.2007
executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 is liable
to be declared null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. In
view of the above discussions, Issue no: 6 is decided in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No.7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of
declaration as prayed for in para no.A of the prayer clause?
OPP
Issue No. 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of
permanent injunction as prayed in para no.B and C of prayer
clause?OPP
82. Both these issues are being decided together as they
involve adjudication of interconnected questions of fact and law.
The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. As already
discussed while deciding the foregoing issues, the plaintiffs have
successfully discharged the burden cast upon her.
83. This Court has already held that the GPA dated
09.01.2004 executed in favour of Defendant No.1 was not
coupled with interest and was validly revoked by the plaintiff. It
has further been held that the GPA dated 02.06.2004 executed by
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 QUAMAR Page No.58 of 61
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:26:22
+0530
Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 created, at best, only
a sub-agency, which stood terminated upon revocation of the
parent authority. This Court has also held that Defendant No.2
had no subsisting authority to execute the Sale Deed dated
29.06.2007 in favour of Defendant No.3 and that Defendant No.3
has failed to establish that he was a bona fide purchaser for value
without notice.
84. Consequently, the Sale Deed dated 29.06.2007 executed
by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 is liable to be
declared null and void and not binding upon the rights and
interests of the plaintiff in the suit property. The Plaintiffs are,
therefore, entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for in
paragraph A of the prayer clause.
85. Further, the Plaintiffs have also proved her possession and
lawful rights in respect of the suit property. In view of the findings
returned hereinabove and in order to prevent multiplicity of
proceedings and protect the plaintiffs from unlawful interference
with their rights, the plaintiffs are also entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction. The defendants, their agents,
representatives, assignees or any person claiming through them
are liable to be restrained from creating any third-party interest in
the suit property, from alienating, transferring or parting with
possession thereof, and from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
property.
86. Accordingly, Issue Nos.7 and 8 are decided in favour of
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Digitally signed
Page No.59 of 61
HALA by HALA
QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:26:27 +0530
the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF
87. In view of aforesaid findings, the present suit stands
decreed.
88. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration,
thereby declaring that the sale deed allegedly executed in favour
of Defendant No. 3 by Defendant No. 2 as attorney of Defendant
No. 1, registered as Document No. 6972, Additional Book No. 1,
Volume No. 3789, at pages 76, dated 29.06.2007, in the office of
Sub-Registrar-IX, New Delhi, in respect of the suit property, i.e.,
land measuring 426 sq. yds., being Khasra No. 68/67 out of
Khasra No. 53 in the revenue records of Village Humayunpur,
known as Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the
site plan, is declared null and void and stands canceled.
89. The plaintiffs are also entitled to a decree of permanent
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants,
thereby restraining the defendants, their family members,
nominees, servants, agents, henchmen, etc., from forcibly taking
possession of the suit property, i.e., land measuring 3750 sq. yds.
situated in Khasra No. 68/67 out of Khasra No. 53 in the revenue
records of Village Humayunpur, Colony known as Arjun Nagar,
New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan. The
defendants, especially Defendant No. 3, are further restrained
from representing himself as owner in respect of any part of the
suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.06.2007.
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 HALA by HALA QUAMAR Page No.60 of 61 QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07 17:26:32 +0530
90. Further, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby
restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, transferring,
alienating, or creating any third-party interest, in any manner
whatsoever, on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated
29.06.2007.
91. Cost of the suit is awarded in favour of the plaintiffs.
92. The Plaintiffs are directed to deposit the deficient Court
Fee, if any. A report to that effect be prepared by the Reader of
this Court, pursuant to which Decree sheet be prepared
accordingly.
93. In compliance with Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963, Ahlmad of this Court is directed that a copy of this
decree be transmitted to the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar
where the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 is registered, so that an
appropriate note regarding the cancellation and declaration of
nullity of the said instrument be made in the books/registers
maintained in accordance with law.
94. File be consigned to the record room after due
Digitally signed
compliance. by HALA
QUAMAR
HALA Date:
QUAMAR
Announced in the open 2026.07.07
17:26:37
+0530
Court today on 07.07.2026.
(HALA QUAMAR)
Civil Judge-1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ No.594032/2016 Page No.61 of 61
