POONAM BATRA vs ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th April, 2025
+ CS(OS) 167/2022 & I.A. 4370/2022
POONAM BATRA …..Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, Mr. Shivansh Agarwal and Ms Ragini Kapoor, Advocates
versus
ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. …..Defendants
Through: Mr. Satish Bajaj, Advocate for D-1 and D-2
Mr. Gaurav Sehdev, Advocate for D-3
Mr. Rahul Chauhan, Advocate for D-4
Ms. Rachita Garg, Advocate for D-5
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
% J U D G M E N T
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
1. The plaintiff, who claims to be the owner in possession of the property bearing Plot No. 154, Sector 17, Block A-2, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 admeasuring approximately 150 sq. yds. [suit property], has filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration that the purported sale deed dated 20.10.2017 [impugned sale deed] qua the suit property, alleged to have been executed by one Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 herein, in favour of one Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma/defendant no. 1, is forged, fabricated, non-est and illegal; and further that the mortgage created upon the suit property by defendant nos. 1 and 2 based on the impugned sale deed in favour of M/s Axis Bank Ltd./defendant no. 4, is also therefore illegal and non-est, and not binding upon the plaintiff.
Additionally, the plaintiff has also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs ownership, possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Defendant no. 5 is the concerned Sub-Registrar, Sub-Division II-B, Janakpuri, where the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff and the impugned sale deed executed in favour of defendant no. 1 is registered. The said Sub-Registrar has been impleaded vis-à-vis the relief of cancellation of the impugned sale deed.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the suit property. As per the pleadings, the plaintiff received the suit property by virtue of the following title flow: –
2.1. It is stated that the suit property was originally allotted by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to one Mr. Inderjit Singh in the year 2003 and upon his death, the suit property got mutated in favour of his son, Mr. Darshan Singh and his daughter-in-law, Smt. Deep Kaur on 20.11.2003. Thereafter, in the year 2004 the said persons transferred the suit property to one, Smt. Usha Garg, who subsequently, transferred it to one Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg i.e., defendant no. 3 herein in the year 2005.
2.2. It is stated that by way of registered Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005, the suit property was conveyed by DDA in favour of Shri Darshan Singh and Smt. Deep Kaur through their attorney Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 herein.
This Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005 has been produced on record and is stated to be in the custody of the plaintiff.
2.3. It is stated that on 09.11.2005, Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 sold the suit property to Mr. Rakesh Batra [husband of the plaintiff] vide registered sale deed dated 09.11.2005 and thus, on 09.11.2005, Mr. Rakesh Batra became the sole and absolute owner of the suit property.
2.4. It is stated that on 02.03.2006, Mr. Rakesh Batra sold the suit property to his friend, namely, Mr. Harjit Singh Shah vide registered sale deed dated 02.03.2006.
2.5. It is stated that thereafter, on 16.06.2010, Mr. Harjit Singh Shah vide registered sale deed dated 16.06.2010 sold the half (½) undivided share of the suit property to the plaintiff herein for a sum of Rs. 15,25,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and Twenty-Five Thousand]; and, on 09.09.2019, Mr. Harjit Singh Shah vide registered sale deed dated 09.09.2019 sold the remaining half (½) undivided share of the suit property to the plaintiff herein for a sum of Rs. 83,25,000/- [Rupees Eighty-Three Lakhs and Twenty-Five Thousand]. It is stated that therefore on 09.09.2019, the plaintiff became the sole and absolute owner of the suit property.
2.6. It is stated1 that the plaintiff applied and obtained a sanctioned plan from the concerned authorities and carried out construction. And, multi-storeyed apartments were constructed on the suit property in the year 2019-2020. The photographs of the suit property have been placed on record as Document-15.
3. It is stated in the plaint that in February, 2021, the plaintiff and her husband (Mr. Rakesh Batra) learnt from their neighbours that some officers of defendant no. 4 bank were making enquiries in relation to the suit property; and upon seeking further information from defendant no. 4 bank, the plaintiff to her shock and surprise learnt that defendant nos. 1 and 2 herein had obtained a loan from defendant no. 4 bank sometime in the year 2017; and the suit property had been mortgaged as security with defendant no. 4 bank on the basis of the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017. Pursuant to this the plaintiff also made enquiries at the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar (i.e., defendant no. 5 herein) and learnt about the existence of the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017, purportedly executed by an unknown person impersonating himself to be Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3.
4. It is stated that the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 has been forged and fabricated by defendant no. 1 to fraudulently avail loan from defendant no. 4 bank.
5. In the aforenoted facts, the plaintiff has filed the captioned suit seeking a declaration vis-à-vis the forgery of the sale deed dated 20.10.2017 and a declaration that the mortgage created on the suit property is non-est as well as a decree of permanent injunction.
Arguments on behalf of plaintiff
6. Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff is the absolute owner-in-possession of the suit property and has in her possession the original title documents qua the suit property.
6.1. He stated that the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 has been executed by an unknown person impersonating himself to be Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 [in favour of defendant no. 1]. He stated that on an ocular examination of the conveyance deed dated 04.05.2005 executed by DDA in favour of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3, original registered sale deed dated 09.11.2005 executed by Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 in favour of the plaintiffs husband, Mr. Rakesh Batra and the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017, it is evident that the purported photographs and signatures of the alleged Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg in the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017, does not match with the photographs and signatures of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 as affixed on DDAs Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005 and sale deed dated 09.11.2005.
6.2. He stated that no sale deed could have been executed on 20.10.2017 by Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3, as he had transferred all rights, title and interest in the suit property in favour of Mr. Rakesh Batra on 09.11.2005. And, as on 20.10.2017, plaintiff and Mr. Harjit Singh Shah were the co-owners of the suit property.
6.3. He stated that before filing of the captioned suit, the plaintiff got legal notice dated 08.02.2021 issued by her lawyers to defendant no. 4 bank stating that the plaintiff is the absolute owner-in-possession of the suit property and the plaintiff has never obtained any loan from defendant no. 4 bank qua the suit property. He stated that on 16.02.2021, the plaintiff received a response from defendant no. 4 bank stating that the said bank had initiated an internal inquiry to validate the claim of the plaintiff and to take further suitable action thereon. He stated that thereafter, the plaintiff by way of legal notice dated 19.02.2021, called upon defendant no. 4 bank to initiate appropriate proceedings against defendant nos. 1 and 2 in case it was found that the loan obtained by defendant nos. 1 and 2 was on the basis of the forged and fabricated sale deed dated 20.10.2017.
6.4. He stated that on 17.02.2021, the plaintiff along with her husband lodged a criminal complaint against defendant nos. 1 and 2 before the S.H.O., P.S. Dwarka (North), Sector-17, New Delhi for the commission of offences of cheating and aggravated forgery, which eventually led to the registration of FIR No. 857/2021 dated 10.12.2021. He stated that defendant no. 3 had appeared before the Investigating Officer and denied having executed the sale deed dated 20.10.2017.
6.5. He stated that the plaintiff has been the victim of a property fraud carried on by defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 and other unknown persons, whereby they have created forged and fabricated sale deed dated 20.10.2017 qua the suit property in favour of defendant no. 1 and then secured disbursal of funds from defendant no. 4 bank, despite the officials of defendant no. 4 bank being aware that the purported sale deed 20.10.2017 was forged and fabricated.
6.6. He stated that a perusal of the written statements filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 reveals that averments pleaded therein are bald and bare denials to the contents of the plaint. He stated that the defence of defendant nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement is vague, sans any material particulars and completely moonshine.
6.7. He stated that in its written statement, defendant no. 4 has admitted at paragraph nos. 10, 11, 13 and 14 on page Nos. 7 to 10 and paragraph no. 18 on page no. 12 of its written statement that the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 is in fact a forged and fabricated document and as such no rights can emanate out of it. He stated that defendant no. 4 bank in its written statement has further stated that defendant nos. 1 and 2 are habitual offenders, who have defrauded the bank into extending other loans following the same modus operandi.
6.8. He stated that it is also evident that defendant nos. 1 and 2 hatched a conspiracy to defraud defendant no. 4 bank into extending a loan on the strength of the impugned sale deed which is forged and fabricated.
6.9. He stated that defendant no. 4 bank has also filed, along with its Written Statement, a complaint dated 23.09.2021, filed by the bank against defendant nos. 1 and 2 at P.S. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi for the offences of impersonation and forgery; and in the said complaint the bank has stated that the signatures and photographs of defendant no. 3, Pawan Kumar Garg, in the conveyance deed dated 04.05.2005 and in the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 do not match.
6.10. He stated that on 06.12.2024, defendant no. 4 bank filed an Investigation Report before this Court which reasserts the aforementioned position of defendant no. 4 bank, as it is stated in the Investigation Report that on reaching the suit property, it was confirmed to the officers of defendant no. 4 bank by the neighbours and nearby property dealers that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and that the suit property comprised of Ground + 4 floors.
6.11. He stated that Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3, on 16.12.2024, has stated on oath and reiterated that defendant no. 3 did not execute the impugned Sale Deed (or any other transfer documents in relation to the suit property after 09.11.2005).
6.12. He relies upon the statement of counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 recorded on 15.02.2025 stating that it has no opposition to the reliefs sought in the plaint.
6.13. He stated that thus, it is evident that the impugned sale dated 20.10.2017 is forged and has been executed by an unknown person impersonating as Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3. The forgery of the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 executed in favour of the defendant no. 1 is writ large.
6.14. He stated that the present Suit is therefore a fit case for pronouncement of judgment under Order XV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) since no triable issues have been raised by the contesting defendants. To this effect, the plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in A.N. Kaul v. Neerja Kaul and Another2, P.S. Jain Co. Ltd. v. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. and Others3 and Sanjay Gupta v. Sunil Kumar Gupta4.
Arguments on behalf of defendant no. 4 bank Axis Bank Limited
7. Mr. Rahul Chauhan, learned counsel for defendant no. 4 bank submitted that even defendant no. 4 bank has become a victim of the malicious acts of defendant nos. 1 and 2, who are the actual master minds of the fraudulent transaction qua the suit property, which took place in the year 2017.
7.1. He stated that as is recorded in the investigation report placed on record vide e-diary no. 5807079/2024, the banks internal inquiry has revealed that an unknown person impersonated himself as Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 herein and sold the suit property to defendant nos. 1 and 2 vide impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017.
7.2. He stated that the bank has already initiated recovery proceedings against defendant nos. 1 and 2 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and the same are numbered as OA 52/2023. He stated that attempts have been made to serve defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the O.A. proceedings bearing O.A. No. 52/2023; however, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have failed to join the said OA proceedings.
7.3. He stated that to the knowledge of defendant no. 4 bank, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have not made any complaint with the police despite being put to notice that the alleged person, who executed the sale deed dated 20.10.2017 in their favour, had impersonated as Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg. He stated that this raises serious doubts on the bona fide of defendant nos. 1 and 2 as well.
7.4. He stated that he has instructions to submit that defendant no. 4 bank reasonably believes that defendant nos. 1 and 2 and the unknown person, who impersonated as Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 runs a racket, where they similarly create illegal and invalid documents to defraud banks and raise loans. He stated that defendant no. 1 in fact has criminal antecedents.
7.5. He stated that during course of investigation, the bank has discovered another loan account pertaining to another property bearing Flat no. 608, 6th Floor, Block C, DDA HIG Flats, Sector 29 Rohini, Delhi 110094, which has similarly become a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), and defendant nos. 1 and 2 were are borrowers for that loan amount as well. He stated that the alleged buyer from whom defendant nos. 1 and 2 bought the said immovable property is similarly untraceable and the same modus operandi has been adopted in that matter as well.
7.6. He stated that in these facts, which have come on record, the bank has no further submissions to make with respect to the relief sought by the Plaintiff in the present proceedings and the bank itself is a victim of fraud or at the behest of defendant nos. 1 and 2.
Arguments on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2
8. Mr. Satish Bajaj, learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 stated that in view of the evidence, which has come on record including the investigation report5 of Axis Bank i.e., defendant no. 4 herein and the statement of defendant no. 3 recorded on 16.12.2024, he does not wish to address any other submissions in the present suit.
8.1. He stated that in view of the investigation report filed by defendant no. 4 bank and the statement of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 recorded on oath by this Court on 16.12.2024, he stated that the said defendant nos. 1 and 2 do not oppose the reliefs sought in the present suit.
Stand of defendant no. 3 recorded on 16.12.2024
9. Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant No. 3s statement on oath was recorded before this Court on 16.12.2024 and he confirmed that he has not executed the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 (Exhibit D-3) in favour of defendant no. 1 herein.
9.1. Defendant no. 3 in his statement confirmed the due execution of the sale deed dated 09.11.2005 (Exhibit D-2) in favour of Mr. Rakesh Batra (husband of the plaintiff) qua the suit property.
9.2. Defendant no. 3 also confirmed the execution of the DDAs Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005 (Exhibit D-1). The original of the said Conveyance Deed was produced by the plaintiff for recording the statement of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant No. 3 and was thereafter, returned to the plaintiff.
Stand of defendant no. 5/Sub-Registrar, Sub-Division II B, Janakpuri recorded on 16.12.2024
10. The said defendant produced before this Court, the certified copy of the sale deed dated 09.11.2005 (Exhibit D-2) and the certified copy of the sale deed dated 20.10.2017 (Exhibit D-3). The certified copy of the sale deed dated 20.10.2017 (Exhibit D-3) was produced by defendant no. 5, which were put to defendant no. 3 during his cross-examination.
Findings and Analysis
11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The present suit pertains to seeking declaration that the impugned sale deed i.e., sale deed dated 20.10.2017 qua property bearing No. 154, Sector 17, Block A-2, Dwarka, New Delhi i.e., the suit property, purportedly executed in favour of defendant no. 1 is a forged document and is thus, null and void. In addition, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that the mortgage on the suit property, created in favour of defendant no. 4 bank on basis of the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 is non-est.
13. The fundamental basis for seeking the said declarations is that the alleged vendor Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, who executed the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 was an impostor and was not the real Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3.
Significantly, Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg has been impleaded as defendant no. 3 in the suit and he has confirmed on oath on 16.12.2024 that he has not executed the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 in favour of defendant no. 1. The identity of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, who appeared before this Court on 16.12.2024 and deposed on oath is not in dispute.
14. The plaintiff claims absolute ownership of the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deeds dated 16.06.2010 and 09.09.2019 executed by Mr. Harjit Singh Shah in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff traces her title in the suit property through Mr. Harjit Singh Shah, Mr. Rakesh Batra, Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 and DDA.
The chain of title documents from DDA to the plaintiff form a part of an unbroken chain and are duly registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff, therefore, claims absolute title to the suit property on the basis of duly registered documents forming part of the public record, including DDA.
15. Before delving in to analysis of the facts of the case, it would be pertinent to refer to the orders passed by this Court in the previous hearings in the present matter.
15.1. By an interim order dated 22.03.2022, this Court upon being satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a prima-facie case in her favour, restrained defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 and any person acting on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It was further directed that the status quo shall be maintained in respect of the title and ownership of the suit property, till the next date of hearing. The said order is in continuation till date.
15.2. By way of order dated 09.09.2024, this Court observed that upon comparing the admitted photograph and admitted signatures affixed on the Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005, executed by DDA in favour of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3, with the disputed photograph and disputed signatures of alleged vendor Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg affixed on the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017, it is apparent to the naked eye that the individuals, who signed these two documents are not the same person. Neither the photographs nor the signatures match each other.
15.3. During the arguments on 09.09.2024, the learned counsel for the plaintiff had sought a decree under Order XV Rule 1 of CPC. However, this Court was of the considered opinion that before passing a decree under Order XV Rule 1 of CPC on basis of the documents relied upon by the parties and without trial, it would be prudent to have the statement of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 [in whose favour DDA had executed the Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005] recorded.
15.4. Plaintiff herein is claiming title through Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 on basis of the sale deed dated 09.11.2005 executed by Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 in favour of Mr. Rakesh Batra (husband of the plaintiff).
15.5. So also, defendant no. 1 is claiming title through Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg i.e., the alleged vendor in the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017.
15.6. Accordingly, Court notice was issued to Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 and the matter was re-notified for recording the statement of defendant no. 3.
15.7. On 16.12.2024, Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 entered appearance and his statement on oath was recorded. Defendant no. 3 admitted that the registered sale deed dated 09.11.2005 i.e., Exhibit D-2, was executed by him in favour of Mr. Rakesh Batra [husband of the plaintiff] qua the suit property. He also admitted his photograph and signatures on the DDAs Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005 i.e., Exhibit D-1.
Significantly, defendant no. 3 unequivocally denied the execution of the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 i.e., Exhibit D-3. He deposed that the photograph affixed on the impugned sale deed is not his photograph and the signatures of the alleged Pawan Kumar Garg as they appear on the impugned sale deed are not his signatures. He further deposed that he has never executed any document in favour of defendant no. 1 i.e., Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma.
15.8. Defendant no. 4 bank placed its (undated) internal investigation report on record on 06.12.2024, which substantiates the stand of the plaintiff and the statement of defendant no. 3, as regards impersonation of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 before the Sub-Registrar. The said investigation report contains the following findings: –
Other findings
* The photograph of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg in the conveyance deed dated 04.05.2005 was not matching with the photograph of seller Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg as per sale deed dated 20.10.2017 with the borrower Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma. Further signature of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg in Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005 executed by Delhi Development Authority was at variance with the signature of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg as appearing in Sale Deed executed on 20.10.2017 with Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma.
* Hence it is observed that an unknown person has impersonated as Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg and sold the property to the borrower.
* The borrower Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma has not made any complaint with the Bank related to the dispute on the property nor he had lodged any police complaint.
(Emphasis Supplied)
15.9. On 15.02.2025, learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 fairly submitted that in view of the evidence on record, internal inquiry report filed by defendant no. 4 as well as the statement of defendant no. 3 recorded on oath on 16.12.2024, the said defendants do not oppose the reliefs sought in the present suit.
16. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the Order XV of CPC, which empowers the Court to pronounce judgment at once, upon finding that the parties are not on an issue of any question of law or fact. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Meenakshi Manna v. Smt. Suriti Manna and Another6, while allowing a revision petition filed against an order passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application under Order XV CPC was rejected, held as under: –
5. It becomes pertinent to note that Order XV Rule 1 of the Code is a power conferred upon a court to pronounce judgement where it finds on the first hearing of the suit that parties do not appear to be at issue on any question of law or a fact. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, on the other hand, contemplates the rendering of a judgement on admission. Insofar as the power conferred under Order XII Rule 6 is concerned, it is by now well- settled that a judgement of admission can be rendered only in case the Court discerns from the pleadings that a material fact which would warrant the suit being decreed has been unequivocally admitted. Order XV, on the other hand, places an obligation upon the Court to sift through the pleadings of parties and to consider whether a triable issue arises or whether the parties can be said to be at variance on a material question of law or fact which would warrant the suit being tried on merits. If the Trial Judge finds to the contrary, it may proceed to pronounce judgement forthwith.
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. The judgements relied upon by the plaintiff also hold to this effect and it would be relevant to refer to para 11 of A.N. Kaul vs. Neerja Kaul and Another (Supra), which reads as under:-
11. Not only so, Order XV of the CPC empowers the Court to, upon finding that the parties are not on an issue of any question of law or fact, pronounce judgment at once. Thus even if there is no express admission in the written statement but an intelligent reading of the written statement shows the propositions or pleas taken to be not material and no issue to be arising therefrom, the Court is still entitled to pass a decree forthwith.
18. There is no dispute between the plaintiff, defendant no. 1, defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 4 that Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005 (Exhibit D-1) was executed by DDA in favour of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3.
19. Plaintiff has relied upon the execution of sale deed dated 09.11.2005 (Exhibit D-2) by Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 in favour of Mr. Rakesh Batra; whereby the suit property was sold by defendant no. 3. The due execution of the sale deed dated 09.11.2005 has been admitted by defendant no. 3 in the statement recorded on 16.12.2024. With the execution of the said sale deed, defendant no. 3, admittedly transferred all right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of Mr. Rakesh Batra. The said sale deed records that the actual physical possession of the suit property has been handed over to Mr. Rakesh Batra.
20. The defendant no. 1 in his written statement at paragraph nos. 10 and 12 of reply on merits have specifically admitted the contents of the paragraph nos. 10 and 12 of the plaint. The paragraph nos. 10 and 12 of the plaint and reply to said paragraphs as stated in the written statement of defendant no. 1 read as under: –
Relevant Para(s) of the Plaint
Relevant Para(s) of the Written Statement filed by defendant no. 1
10. Eventually on 04.05.2005, the Suit Property was conveyed in favour of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg (Defendant No. 3) by way of a registered Conveyance Deed.
10. That para 10 of the plaint is not denied.
12. As such, between 09.11.2005 and 01.03.2006, Mr. Rakesh Batra was the sole, absolute and uncontested owner-in-possession of the said Property.
12. That para 12 of the plaint is correct.
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. Mr. Rakesh Batra thereafter executed a sale deed dated 02.03.2006 in favour of Mr. Harjit Singh Shah and transferred the entire suit property. And, Mr. Harjit Singh Shah vide sale deeds dated 16.06.2010 and 09.09.2019 transferred the entire suit property in favour of plaintiff herein. There is no dispute with respect to the valid execution of these sale deeds i.e., 02.03.2006, 16.06.2010 and 09.09.2019.
22. Thus, on a conjoint reading of the DDAs Conveyance Deed dated 04.05.2005 and the subsequent sale deeds dated 09.11.2005, 02.03.2006, 16.06.2010 and 09.09.2019 there is no doubt that the plaintiff acquired the right, title and interest of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 in the suit property along with possession.
23. In these facts, as on 20.10.2017, Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 had no right, title or interest in the suit property. Thus, in law Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 could not have executed any sale deed or any other deed [including impugned sale deed] in favour of defendant no. 1 or any other person. On this ground alone, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration and injunction sought in this suit.
24. However, in the facts, which have come on record it is indisputable that as a matter-of-fact Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 did not execute the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 in favour of defendant no. 1. In this regard, the statement on oath of Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg/defendant no. 3 dated 16.12.2024, the findings of defendant no. 4-Banks internal inquiry report and the admission of the counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 recorded on 15.02.2025 are relevant; and entitles the plaintiff to the relief of declaration and injunction sought in the plaint.
25. In view of the undisputed material placed on record and findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that no triable issues arise for consideration on the basis of the pleadings of the parties; which would warrant that the suit be tried on merits. In fact, defendant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have all conceded to the absolute title of the plaintiff herein in the suit property. Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 have not disputed the statement on oath of defendant no. 3 that he did not execute the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017.
26. Thus, the suit is decreed and the reliefs of declaration sought at prayer clauses (a) and (b) as well as the relief of permanent injunction sought at prayer clause (c) are hereby granted. In view of the grant of declaration that the sale deed dated 20.10.2017 is illegal and non-est, the said sale deed ought to be cancelled and it is further directed that defendant no. 5 i.e., the concerned Sub-Registrar, Sub-Division II-B Janakpuri shall make a due note of the cancellation of the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 in its record so as to avoid any further mischief on the basis of the said sale deed.
A compliance report will be filed by defendant no. 5 within four (4) weeks.
27. The order dated 19.11.2024 records the statement of learned counsel for defendant no. 4 bank that the impugned sale deed has been deposited with Investigating Officer (IO) of FIR No. 857/2021 at P.S. Dwarka.
In this regard, IO of FIR No. 857/2021 is directed to deliver up the original impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017 before the Registrar (Original) of this Court so that it can be cancelled to avoid any misuse of this title document. The original impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017, after its cancellation shall be handed over to the IO of FIR No. 857/2021. After trial in the FIR is complete, the cancelled sale deed will be handed over to the plaintiff herein.
28. The defendant no. 4 bank shall be entitled to retain a certified copy of the cancelled sale deed for its prosecution in the recovery proceedings filed before DRT and for criminal proceedings; only for purpose of evidence and no more.
29. So also, in view of the declaration vis-à-vis mortgage granted in by this Court in favour of the plaintiff, defendant no. 4 bank is directed to ensure that it corrects its own records and the records of Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) to remove any charge or mortgage claim with respect to the suit property. These directions shall be complied within four (4) weeks.
30. In view of the permanent injunction granted in favour of plaintiff, the interim order dated 22.03.2022 stands merged with the said injunction.
31. This Court notes that plaintiff in the suit at paragraph 35 while valuing the suit for the purposes of Court fee has valued prayer clause (a) at Rs. 2.10 crores and paid a fixed Court fee of Rs. 19.50; similarly, the plaintiff has valued prayer clause (b) at Rs. 2.10 crores and paid a fixed Court fee Rs. 19.50. The Court fee affixed is deficient. The plaintiff is directed to pay ad-valorem Court fee on prayer clauses (a) and (b) on the valuation given as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, within two (2) weeks. Subject to deposit of the deficient Court fees by the plaintiff, the Registry is directed to draw up a decree in terms of the judgment.
32. Subject to payment of the deficient Court fee, list before the Registrar (Original) on 14.05.2025 for cancellation of the impugned sale deed dated 20.10.2017; as well for verification of compliance by defendant no.4-bank and defendant no.5-authority.
33. The suit stands decreed in the aforesaid terms.
34. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
35. A copy of this order be sent to SHO, P.S. Dwarka and standing counsel (Crl.) for information and compliance of directions in para 27.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 16, 2025/rhc/MG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 At paragraph 4 of the Note on Facts filed by the plaintiff on 24.02.2025.
2 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9597
3 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4862
4 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12266
5 Placed on record by defendant no. 4-Bank vide e-diary no. 5807079/2024
6 2022:DHC:1877
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
CS(OS) 167/2022 Page 2 of 2