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:-DLCT030001632007
CS SCJ No.595994/16
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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.1 of 58
Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:26:57
+0530
2. Sh. Tejbeer Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma
R/o 84, Village Ujjwa, Nazafgarh,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Krishan Kaushik
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan
R/o 111, Pooth Kalan,
Delhi. ..Defendants
Date of institution of suit 08.12.2007
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. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts as per the
plaint are that the plaintiffs had purchased the built up property of
area measuring 3750 sq yds situated in Khewat No.68/67, out of
Khasra No.53 in revenue record of Village Humayupur, Colony
known as Arjun Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
the suit property) shown in red colour in the site plan, by virtue of
four sale deeds dated 02.07.2003 duly registered in the office of
Sub Registrar, Delhi. That out of the aforesaid total area of land
of 3750 sq yards, the plaintiff No.1 has purchased a portion of 900
sq. yards land and whereas the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 have purchased
the portions of 950 sq. yds each in respect of said property. That
since the purchase of the suit property from its erstwhile owner
Sh. Narain Das, the plaintiffs are in actual physical possession of
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.2 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:02 +0530
the said entire suit property. That plaintiffs had earlier without any
consideration executed one General Power of Attorney and a Will
on 09.01.2004 in favour of defendant No.1 and there was no sale
transaction and also no consideration was involved in the said
General Power of Attorney or the Will executed by the plaintiffs
in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property. That
later on the intention of defendant No.1 had become malafide and
he got the said GPA registered on 02.09.2004 with the office of
Sub Registrar concerned, Delhi. That when plaintiffs came to
know about the said fact, they immediately cancelled the said
General Power of Attorney and Will on 22.09.2004 and the said
fact was also notified to defendant No.1 also and the publication
to that effect was also got published on 30.11.2006 in the
newspaper namely “Veer Arjun”. That in any event, the said
General Power of Attorney dated 09.01.2004 was not registered
till 02.09.2004, therefore, on the basis of said Power of Attorney
dated 09.01.2004 the defendant No.1 herein had no right in
respect of the suit property and as such the defendant No.1 could
not have executed any document in respect of the suit property in
favour of any one else. That the plaintiffs were shocked to know
in last week of October, 2007 that the defendant No.3 was
claiming to be owner of a portion of 426 sq. yards of land falling
in the suit property and thereafter on inquiry plaintiffs also came
to know that the defendant No.2 executed a Sale Deed in favour
of defendant No.3 on the basis of alleged General Power of
Attorney dated 02.06.2004 allegedly executed by defendant No.1
in favour of defendant No.2. That on 02.06.2004 the defendant
No.1 had no right or authority to execute any document in respect
of the suit property either in favour of defendant No.2 or any oneDigitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.3 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:06 +0530
else. That thereafter the plaintiffs applied for the certified copy of
the said document and the plaintiffs then also came to know that
the defendant No.1 and 2 in collusion with each other had
executed several sale deeds in favour of several other persons in
respect of the suit property of which the plaintiffs are the only
registered owners and also are in actual physical possession of the
same and none of the defendants are in possession of any portion
of the suit property and accordingly till date the plaintiffs are in
possession of the said entire suit property and defendants cannot
be permitted to sell the suit property. That the said General Power
of Attorney which was malafidely got registered by the plaintiffs
on 02.09.2004 and the same was thereafter cancelled on
22.09.2004. That perusal of the said General Power of Attorney
also makes it clear that the defendant No.1 with malafide
intention got the said Power of Attorney later on registered with
the office of Sub Registrar on 02.09.2004. That defendant No.1
without any registered Power of Attorney had executed another
Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.2 on 02.06.2004
which was illegal and the defendant No.2 as such had no authority
or any title in respect of the suit property. That in fact on
02.06.2004 the defendant No.1 had no right, authority, power or
title etc to execute any document or get the same registered in
favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit property as the
defendant No.1 had no right to execute any document in favour
of defendant No.2 in the absence of any registered documents in
his own (defendant No.1) favour therefore the said General Power
of Attorney allegedly executed by the defendant No.1 in favour
of defendant No.2 on 02.06.2004 in respect of the suit property is
illegal, null and void and has no legal sanctity, therefore the
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.4 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:10 +0530
defendant No.2 was not competent to execute any document or
get the same registered in faovour of defendant No.3 in respect of
the suit property and as such the alleged Sale Deed executed in
favour of defendant No.3 by defendant No.2 in respect of the suit
property is thus illegal, null and void and has no legal sanctity and
defendant No.3 also cannot represent himself as owner of the suit
property or any part thereof. That the plaintiffs are still in actual
physical possession of the suit property being the recorded
registered owner thereof, therefore, the defendant cannot be
permitted to take the possession of the suit property from the
plaintiffs. That defendants also cannot be permitted to represent
even that they are in possession of the suit property or the owner
of the suit property as the fact remains that the plaintiffs are in
possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs have also
appointed security guards also in the suit property for last several
years. That as the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 were not
having any right, title or interest in respect of the suit property
therefore, neither the defendant No.1 nor the defendant No.2 can
vest any valid title in favour of the defendant No.3 and as such
the defendant No.3 has no right, title or interest in respect of the
suit property and the alleged sale deed executed by defendant
No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 as an alleged attorney of
defendant No.1, which sale deed is registered vide registration
No.6975, Addl. Book No.1, Volume No.3789 at pages No.46 to
60 dated 29.06.2007 registered with the office of Sub-Registrar
IX, New Delhi be declared illegal, null and void and be cancelled
immediately. That the defendant No.3 has no right, title or interest
in respect of the suit property and the sale deed allegedly executed
in favour of the defendant No.3 by defendant No.2 has no legalCS SCJ No.595994/2016 Digitally signed Page No.5 of 58
by HALA
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:15 +0530
sanctity, therefore, the defendant No.3 also cannot be permitted to
represent himself to be the owner of any portion of the suit
property. That as the plaintiffs are the joint owners and in
possession of the entire suit property and also the suit property
has not been partitioned till dated amongst the plaintiffs therefore,
the defendants also cannot be permitted to give any private
number such as 2-F or any other number in respect of the suit
property of which the plaintiffs are the recorded owners and are
accordingly in possession thereof. That defendants in collusion
with each other are trying to take possession of the suit property
forcibly by virtue of the alleged sale deed which has been
collusively executed in favour of defendant No.3 without any
right, title or interest. That all the defendants tried to take
possession of the suit property forcibly with their 5-6 musclemen
on 18.11.2007 but because of timely action taken by the plaintiffs,
the defendants could not succeed in their illegal goal. Hence, the
present suit.
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.
It is pertinent to note that upon appearance, a written statement
was filed only behalf of Defendant No.2 and Defendnat No. 3. No
written statement was filed by Defendant Nos.1, and therefore his
defence had already been struck off vide order dated 28.09.2013.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.2
3. It is submitted on behalf of defendant No.2 that the plaintiff
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR
Page No.6 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:19 +0530
never mentioned that the plaintiffs had already cancelled the legal
and valid Power of Attorney which was executed in favour of
defendant No.1. That father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2
known to each other very well. That the present suit is not
maintainable in the eyes of law as it is barred by doctrine of
estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. That the plaintiffs who got
typed all the materials on the stamp paper after arranging the same
from her own source and also arranged the witnesses for the
purpose of necessary requirement for the GPA. That the plaintiffs
had executed the GPA in favour of defendant No.1 on 09.01.2004
which was duly presented for the execution/registration before the
Sub Registrar where they had signed the said document and it was
kept for giving the registration number as usually in normal
course the Registrar office allotted later on. That the present suit
has been filed to harass and to grab money from the defendant
No.2. That title of the suit is not as according to the law as the sale
deed on which the cancellation and declaration is sought, which
is not related to the sale deed belonging to the defendant No.2.
That the plaintiffs duly executed as per the legal requirement
documents in favour of defendant No.1 who by authority of the
plaintiffs further executed Power of Attorney in favour of
defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 duly executed the Sale Deed
in favour of others, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on
threshold. That defendant No.3 has purchased the suit property
from the defendant No.2 according to the law which are defined
u/s 54 of Transfer of Property Act. That the
cancellation/declaration of the Sale Deed is not possible until and
unless there is any material proving the fraud committed by the
vendee in execution of the sale deed. That the allegations in the
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.7 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:24 +0530
plaint by the plaintiff towards the defendant No.2 are false,
frivolous and vexatious. That suit is not maintainable as the
mandatory provisions is not complied by the plaintiff in filing the
suit for permanent injunction and declaration. That as the prayer
made by the plaintiffs that the sale deed in favour of defendant
No.3 should be declared null and void is not maintainable because
without praying that the GPA in favour of defendant No.2 is null
and void. That the power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2
is valid, proper and legally executed document and the plaintiffs
cannot go beyond the estoppels by admitting the same and having
knowledge about the same. That present suit is not maintainable
for the joinder and misjoinder of the parties. That the present suit
is not properly valued. That the present suit is barred by law as
the plaintiffs not claimed any relief in respect of the property as
the legal and actual owner as pleaded by the plaintiffs. That suit
does not disclose any cause of action against the answering
defendant. Further all the averments made in the plaint were
denied on behalf of defendant in toto.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.3
4. It is submitted on behalf of defendant No.3 that defendant
No.3 has purchased the plot No.2-F, 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.6975, Addl
Book No.1, Volume No.3789 at pages 46-60. That defendant No.3
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.8 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:28 +0530
is bonafide purchaser of the above said plot and he purchased the
same after paying Rs.13,63,000/- and duly 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 with heavy cost. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 QUAMAR Page No.9 of 58
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:27:33
+0530
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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA Date: Page No.10 of 58
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:27:37
+0530
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
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.
7. 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
8. 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
Digitally
signed by
HALA
HALA QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 QUAMAR Date: Page No.11 of 58
2026.07.07
17:27:42
+0530
following documents:-
Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 Copy of SPAs (OSR)
Ex.PW1/4 Site plan.
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"
8.1 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,Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.12 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:46 +0530
along with her mother and sisters, had appeared before the Sub-
Registrar for registration of the GPA and Will. PW-1 further
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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.13 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:50 +0530
challenged in the present suit, and the same was exhibited as Ex.
PW1/D1. PW-1 stated that she did not know whether Ex. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 QUAMAR Page No.14 of 58
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:27:55
+0530
property but did not reside there. PW-1 further stated that she was
not aware whether Defendant No.3 had purchased the suit
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 neitherCS SCJ No.595994/2016 Digitally signed
by HALA
Page No.15 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:27:59 +0530
mentioned the name of the newspaper nor the date of publication
in her pleadings, and had also not placed the newspaper cutting
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.
8.2. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA Date:
Page No.16 of 58
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:28:03
+0530
deposed that he had no knowledge as to whether the property was
actually being used for commercial purposes, as he had never
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.
8.3. 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.
8.4. 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.
8.5. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.17 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:28:07 +0530
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
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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.18 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:28:12 +0530
application seeking transfer of the electricity connection in his
name by submitting certain documents including an affidavit,
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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.19 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:28:17 +0530
would ordinarily be consumed by the department in disposal of
an application for transfer of connection. He further deposed that
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.
8.6. 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.
8.7. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.20 of 58
Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:28:22
+0530
could not say whether any calls had been made or received
through the said telephone number. PW-4 further stated that the
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.
8.8. 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,Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.21 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:28:26 +0530
Smt. Anju Kursija, and Smt. Madhu had applied for mutation of
the property in question; however, since complete ownership
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.
8.9. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 QUAMAR Page No.22 of 58
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:28:31
+0530
and that he had no personal knowledge regarding the payment of
the cheque in question.
8.10. 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).
8.11. 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.
8.12. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 QUAMAR Page No.23 of 58
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:28:35
+0530
Sharma. The said account statement was exhibited as Ex. PW9/1.
During cross-examination by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, PW-9
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.
8.13. 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.
8.14. 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.
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA QUAMAR Page No.24 of 58 HALA Date: QUAMAR 2026.07.07 17:28:40 +0530
8.15. Thereafter the plaintiff evidence stood closed on separate
statement of the plaintiff.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
9. Right to lead DE of Defendnat no:2 was closed vide
order dated 14.10.2025 as no evidence affidavit was filed.
Therefore, defendant evidence has been led on behalf of
defendant No.3 Krishna Kaushik, who got examined himself as a
witness D3W1 and tendered evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.D3W1/A.
10. D3W1 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for
the plaintiffs. The witness stated that he had studied up to 11th
standard and could read and write Hindi language. He further
stated that he read newspapers only in Hindi language. He
deposed that the evidence affidavit was drafted by his counsel and
thereafter the same was read over to him. He further stated that
the affidavit was attested at Tis Hazari Courts and that his brother
had accompanied him at the time of attestation. The witness was
shown the photocopy of the sale deed dated 29.06.2007, which
was exhibited as Ex. D3W1/PX1 (OSR). The witness stated that
he did not have any receipt regarding the amount of Rs.7,63,200/-
paid in cash as mentioned in the sale deed, stating that it was an
old transaction. He further stated that the amount of Rs.6,00,000/-
through cheque mentioned in the sale deed was paid into the
account of defendant No.2; however, he did not remember
whether he had filed any statement of account in this regard and
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.25 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:28:44 +0530
stated that he would have to check with the concerned bank
regarding availability of the same. On being asked whether he
could produce the complete chain of title documents as mentioned
in the sale deed, the witness stated that he could show the
complete chain of documents. On being asked to produce the
original GPA dated 09.01.2004 executed by the plaintiffs in
favour of Rishi Prakash, the witness stated that he did not have
the original GPA in favour of Rishi Prakash and that he only had
one certified copy of GPA executed by Rani Kursija in favour of
Rishi Prakash and certified copy of Will executed by Rani
Kursija. The same were exhibited as Ex. D3W1/PX2 (colly.)
(OSR). He further stated that apart from Ex. D3W1/PX2 (colly.),
he did not have any other document in favour of Rishi Prakash.
The witness was shown the original General Power of Attorney
and Will dated 09.01.2004 executed by Rani Kursija in favour of
Rishi Prakash. After going through the contents thereof, the
witness admitted that both were the same documents. The copy
of GPA dated 09.01.2004 was exhibited as Ex. D3W1/PX3 (OSR)
and the copy of Will dated 09.01.2004 was exhibited as Ex.
D3W1/PX4 (OSR). The witness admitted that Tejbeer had
executed the sale deed in his favour. He further stated that Tejbeer
had executed the sale deed in the capacity of owner. He also
admitted that Rishi Prakash had executed GPA dated 02.06.2004
in favour of Tejbeer.
11. The witness was explained the contents of GPA dated
02.06.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.2 in vernacular language. On being asked whether, vide GPA
dated 02.06.2004, Tejbeer had acquired any ownership rights or
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.26 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:28:49 +0530
not, the witness stated that he could not read the document, which
was in English, and therefore, he was unable to answer. The
photocopy of GPA dated 02.06.2004 was exhibited as Ex.
D3W1/PX5 (OSR). The witness admitted that the plaintiffs had
executed four GPAs and four Wills, all dated 09.01.2004, in
favour of defendant No.1, as mentioned in the sale deed Ex.
D3W1/PX1. The witness was thereafter shown the original GPA
and Will dated 09.01.2004 executed by Anju Kursija, which were
exhibited as Ex. D3W1/PX6 (OSR) and Ex. D3W1/PX7 (OSR),
respectively. The witness was also shown the original GPA and
Will dated 09.01.2004 executed by Madhu, which were exhibited
as Ex. D3W1/PX8 (OSR) and Ex. D3W1/PX9 (OSR),
respectively. The original GPA and Will dated 09.01.2004
executed by Sangeeta Kataria were also shown to the witness and
were exhibited as Ex. D3W1/PX10 (OSR) and Ex. D3W1/PX11
(OSR), respectively. The witness stated that he had never met the
plaintiffs. He further stated that he had never sought any written
confirmation from the plaintiffs before execution of the sale deed
in question as he did not know them. He also stated that he had
not conducted any verification from the plaintiffs regarding the
GPA executed in favour of Rishi Prakash. He further stated that
he did not remember whether he had inspected the records of the
Sub-Registrar before execution of the sale deed in question, as it
was an old transaction. He admitted that he had never filed any
suit for partition and possession in respect of his alleged share. He
denied the suggestion that defendant No.3 was not in possession
of the suit property. The witness stated that he did not know
whether he had got the alleged area of 426 sq. yards demarcated
from the Patwari/Tehsildar. He stated that plot No.2F had been
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016
HALA QUAMAR
Page No.27 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:28:53 +0530
mentioned as others had mentioned private plot numbers. He
denied the suggestion that he was not a bona fide purchaser of the
suit property and that the sale deed in question was not valid and
legally enforceable. On being asked that since he had stated that
he did not know the plaintiffs, how he had deposed in paragraph
No.5 of his affidavit that the plaintiffs never informed him at any
point of time regarding cancellation of the Power of Attorney of
defendant No.1, the witness stated that it was because he was
never informed about the same. The witness denied the
suggestions that he was deliberately avoiding the question and
making false statements. He denied the suggestion that Rishi
Prakash was never the owner of the property. He further denied
the suggestions that the GPAs dated 09.01.2004 executed by the
plaintiffs in favour of Rishi Prakash were without consideration
and revocable unilaterally without notice to defendant No.1; that
Rishi Prakash did not acquire any ownership rights on the basis
of the said GPAs; that the registration of the GPAs dated
09.01.2004 on 02.09.2004 was illegal and without the consent and
knowledge of the plaintiffs; and that the said GPAs were cancelled
by the plaintiffs vide registered deeds of cancellation dated
22.09.2004. The witness further denied the suggestions that
defendant No.1/Rishi Prakash, upon cancellation of the GPAs,
returned the original GPAs and Wills dated 09.01.2004 to the
plaintiffs; that defendant No.1 had complete notice regarding
cancellation of the said GPAs and Wills; and that upon
cancellation of the GPAs dated 09.01.2004, defendant No.1, being
the agent, and defendant No.2, being the sub-agent, had no right,
authority or power to act on behalf of the plaintiffs. The witness
denied the suggestion that the fact of cancellation of the GPAs
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.28 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:28:58 +0530
dated 09.01.2004 was duly published in the newspaper Veer
Arjun. He further denied the suggestions that defendant No.3 had
no right or title in the suit property on the basis of sale deed Ex.
D3W1/PX1; that Ex. D3W1/PX1 was liable to be declared null
and void; that GPA dated 02.06.2004 was executed without the
consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs; and that registration of
GPA dated 09.01.2004 by defendant No.1 on 02.09.2004 was
without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. The witness
further denied the suggestion that he was aware of the
cancellation of the GPAs dated 09.01.2004 before execution of
sale deed Ex. D3W1/PX1. He denied the suggestion that he was
not in possession of the plot in question, that he had not made
diligent inquiries before execution of sale deed Ex. D3W1/PX1
as required by law, and that he was deposing falsely.
12. Record shows that no further defendant evidence has been
led in the present matter and 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.
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.29 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:29:02 +0530
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. 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.
15. In the landmark judgment of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool
Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors (2010) 12 SCC 112, Hon’ble
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.
16. 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.
17. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 QUAMAR Page No.30 of 58
HALA Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:29:07
+0530
of the suit.
18. 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
documentary evidence nor led any convincing oral evidence to
show that the Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property.
19. 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.
20. 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
21. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendants.
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.31 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:29:12 +0530
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
14.10.2025. No defendant apart from Defendnat no:3 entered the
witness box.
22. 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 but no evidence
was led with respect to the same.
23. 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.
24. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.32 of 58
Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:29:18
+0530
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.
25. On the other hand, although it is the case of the
defendants in the written statement that the plaintiffs had full
knowledge of 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 exclamation
in chief.
26. 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.
27. The burden of proving a fact lies upon the party asserting
it. Since the defendants have asserted that the registration dated
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.33 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:29:24 +0530
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.
28. 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.
29. 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
30. 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.
31. The defendants on the other hand have
Digitally challenged the
signed
by HALA
QUAMAR
HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07 Page No.34 of 58
17:29:28
+0530
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.
32. It is an admitted fact that an unregistered GPA dated
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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.35 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:29:33 +0530
35. 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
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.
36. 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.
Digitally signed by HALA CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.36 of 58 QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07 17:29:39 +0530
37. 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.”
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.”
41. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.37 of 58
Date:
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:29:44
+0530
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.
42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of 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.”
43. 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.
44. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR
Page No.38 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:29:48 +0530
Cancellation. The objection regarding unilateral revocation is,
therefore, devoid of merit.
45. 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 such authority has been
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.
46. 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.
47. 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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.39 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:29:54 +0530
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.
48. At this stage, provisions of Section 17 of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908, are reproduced which lays down as
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;……
49. 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,CS SCJ No.595994/2016 Page No.40 of 58
Digitally signed
HALA by HALA
QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:30:02 +0530
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.]
50. 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.”
51. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA Date: Page No.41 of 58
QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:30:06
+0530
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
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.
52. 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.
53. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.42 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:30:11 +0530
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
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.
54. 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.
55. 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.
Digitally signed by HALA QUAMAR HALA CS SCJ No.595994/2016 Date: Page No.43 of 58 QUAMAR 2026.07.07 17:30:15 +0530
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
56. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff. As
already noted that Defendant No.1 acted on the strength of an
unregistered GPA dated 09.01.2004 and executed another GPA in
favour of Defendant No.2 on 02.06.2004.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. Perusal of the GPA dated 09.01.2004 reveals that Clause 3
thereof authorized Defendant No.1 to enter into agreements to
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.44 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:30:23 +0530
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
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.
60. 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.
61. 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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.45 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:30:28 +0530
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.
62. In view of the above discussions, and as already discussed
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
63. 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”
64. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendants.
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 Digitally signed Page No.46 of 58
by HALA
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:30:33 +0530
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
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.
65. 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.
66. 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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016
HALA by HALA
QUAMAR Page No.47 of 58
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:30:38 +0530
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.
67. Accordingly, Issue No.5 is decided in favour of the
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
68. 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”
69. 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.
70. 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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 Page No.48 of 58
HALA by HALA
QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:30:50 +0530
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 authority
claimed by Defendant No.2, or whether he had acted bona fide
after making reasonable enquiries regarding the title and authority
of the transferor.
71. 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.
72. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.49 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:30:55 +0530
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 (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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.50 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:30:59 +0530
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.”
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.”
73. 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.
74. 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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA by HALA Page No.51 of 58
QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:31:04 +0530
property in good faith and without notice of the defects in the title
or authority of Defendant No.2.
75. 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
cannot claim that he was unaware of the revocation of the
authority under which Defendant No.2 purportedly acted.
76. 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.
77. Defendant No.3, in his cross-examination, deposed that he
did not have any receipt for the amount of ₹7,63,200/- paid in
cash as mentioned in the sale deed, stating that it was an old
transaction. He further deposed that the amount of ₹6,00,000/-
through cheque mentioned in the sale deed was paid into the
account of defendant No.2; however, he did not remember
whether he had filed any statement of account in this regard and
stated that he would have to check from the concerned bank
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.52 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:31:08 +0530
regarding the availability of the bank statement. He further
deposed that he could show the complete chain of documents.
However, when specifically asked, he stated that he did not have
the original GPA in favour of defendant No.1 and that he only had
one certified copy of GPA executed by plaintiff Rani Kursija in
favour of defendant No.1 and certified copy of Will executed by
the plaintiff. He further deposed that he had never sought any
written confirmation before execution of the sale deed in question
as he did not know the plaintiffs. He also stated that he had not
conducted any verification from the plaintiffs regarding the GPA
executed in favour of defendant No.1. He further deposed that he
did not remember whether he had inspected the records of the
Sub-Registrar before execution of the sale deed, as it was a very
old transaction.
78. Therefore, even from the cross-examination of defendant
No.3, it is evident that he had no personal knowledge of the
transaction and the relevant title documents. He failed to produce
any receipt regarding the alleged cash payment and was unable to
confirm the payment of the cheque amount through any bank
statement. He also admitted that he was not in possession of the
original GPA executed in favour of defendant No.1 and had not
conducted any verification from the plaintiffs regarding the said
GPA. Further, he could not recall whether he had inspected the
records of the Sub-Registrar before execution of the sale deed.
Thus, the necessary due diligence required to establish him as a
bona fide purchaser is not reflected from his testimony.
Digitally
signed by
HALA
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 2026.07.07 Page No.53 of 58
17:31:12
+0530
79. 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
been deceived by his vendor.
80. 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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA by HALA Page No.54 of 58
QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date: 2026.07.07
17:31:19 +0530
81. 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.
82. 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
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.
83. 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.
84. 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
Digitally signed
by HALA
HALA QUAMAR
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 QUAMAR Date: Page No.55 of 58
2026.07.07
17:31:24 +0530
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.
85. Accordingly, Issue Nos.7 and 8 are decided in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF
86. In view of aforesaid findings, the present suit stands decreed.
87. 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. 6975, 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.
88. The plaintiffs are also entitled to a decree of permanent
Digitally signed
by HALA
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 HALA QUAMAR Page No.56 of 58
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:31:28 +0530
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.
89. 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.
90. Cost of the suit is awarded in favour of the plaintiffs.
91. 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.
92. 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
Digitally signed
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 by HALA Page No.57 of 58
HALA QUAMAR
QUAMAR Date:
2026.07.07
17:31:34 +0530
declaration of nullity of the said instrument be made in the
books/registers maintained in accordance with law.
93. File be consigned to the record room after due
compliance.
Digitally signed
by HALA
Announced in the open HALA QUAMAR
Date:
Court today on 07.07.2026. QUAMAR 2026.07.07
17:31:39
+0530
(HALA QUAMAR)
Civil Judge-1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ No.595994/2016 Page No.58 of 58
