IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURANG SHARMA, LD.

CJJD,
PALWAL, HARYANA

CIVIL SUIT NO. 682 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Bijender Singh ….. Defendant
VERSUS
Hem Lata & Others ….. Defendants
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
Synopsis & Important Dates and Events
As the story of the present case unravels, we have on the
first scene Bijender Singh Thakur of
Village Tikri Brahman, who plays
the Villain of the Case story (is
Plaintiff Bijender herein. Like in old
Hindi Films, this Thakur is
mastermind and kingpin who is
always ready to usurp the property
of others by fraudulent means and
by way of conspiracies. Like vulture
his eyes are always on to grab the
properties of others, especially poor
and weakers. This villain has in his
team Sh. Deen Mohammad & Sh.
Ravi Dutt, Ex-Sarpanch of the
Village, who always are there to act
as conduits at his back and call.

That one Brahmin of the village Shiv Dutt S/o Sh. Natthi
died young, leaving behind him his
wife Smt. Somoti and his four
daughters defendants 2 (i) to 2 (iv)
and two Sons Sh. Pramod and
 Harish. Sh. Nathhi considering his
old age decided that out of total
approx. 12 Acres of land purchased
by him, he bequeathed Approx. 5
acre to his Grandson Pramod,
Approx 5 Acres to another grandson
Harish and rest 2 Acres to
remaining 5 LRs of his diseased son
Shiv Dutt, including Smt. Somoti
W/o Late Shiv Dutt and 4 daughters
of Shiv Dutt (Defendants (i) to (iv).
These 4 daughters of Shiv Dutt were
got married and went to the house
of their in-laws. Now this 2 acre
land was tilled and ploughed by
their brothers.
That this villain mind Thakur Bijender Singh (Plaintiff
herein) had his evil eyes on the land
of the family of the Defendant s from
the very beginning and accordingly,
he lured the brothers one by one,
and the younger son Harish came in
his booby trap and due to the
manipulations and conspiracies of
Thakur Bijender Singh, Harish S/o
Shiv Dutt sold out almost entire 5
acre of land of his share to the
Thakur Bijender Singh or his
conmen, including Ex-Sarpanch
Ravi Dutt, Deen Mohammed, etc.

01.07.2015: That as part of his conspiracy,

Thakur Bijender Singh in the year
 2015 told Mr. Harish to call his
sister for getting the govt. relief for
the loss to crops by hailstorms. He
used Ex- Sarpanch Ravi Dutt for the
purpose, whom Hem Lata knew
well. Hemlata came and signed as
directed by her brother Harish and
later received a cheque no. 063806
of Rs. 1081/- of the HDFC Bank,
Branch Agra Chowk, G.T. Road,
Palwal, dated 01.07.2015, from the
office of SDO Civil, Palwal. This was
a bait by the key conspirator Thakur
Bijender Singh to lure the sister of
Harish on a future date on the
similar pretext.

That when Harish S/o Shiv Dutt was bereft of almost all
agricultural land in his share and
his daughter was of marriageable
age he went to the same Takur
Bijender Singh for his help. As per
conspiracy of Thakur Bijender
Singh, Harish repeatedly called on
mobile to his sister Hem Lata in the
month of April 2016. Finally, Hem
Lata came to look after the wedding
preparations of her niece and see
her mother and brother on
16.04.2016. That as per plan Ex-
Sarpach Ravi Dutt came to the
house of Smt. Somoti and told her
that he can help them get the
 amount of relief announced by govt.
for the loss to crops by Hailstorms
and she would get around 3
thousand rupees. He also told her
that if Hem Lata also applies she
would also get the same around 3
thousand rupees. The old illiterate
lady trusted the words of Ex-
Sarpanch Ravi Dutt and her own
son Mr. Harish, Somovti agreed, and
she also asked Hem Lata to
accompany her as she wanted that
the money could be used in the
marriage of her granddaughter fixed
for 28.04.2016.

20.04.2016: That Mr. Harish was in urgent need

of money for the marriage of his
daughter, and Thakur Bijender
Singh used his maverick skill and
used Deen Mohammad & Ex-
sarpanch Ravi Dutt. Neither the
Defendant was acquainted with the
Court and where to go, nor the late
mother of Hemlata (Defendant No. 1)
Smt. Somoti (Defendant No.2) knew
about any plan of the Plaintiff
Bijenders. As per plan all papers
were got purchased by Ex-Sarpanch
Ravi Dutt and Harish. They told that
the papers were required for the
paisa/relief of previous loss to crops
by hailstroms, to be paid to them.
 Trusting Ex-sarpanch Ravi Dutt as
an old acquaintance including
Harish as being her own real son,
illiterate old lady Smt. Somoti and
her daughter did as directed, for
getting the hailstorms damage to
crops, compensation amount.
Neither Hem Lata, nor her mother
got a single penny from Sh. Ravi
Dutt (Ex-Sarpanch) who was
present there. Thakur Bijender
Singh was not present there, and
nor did he make any payment to the
the mother–daughter duo at any
time.
09.06.2016: The mother of Hem Lata, Smt.
Somoti came to know that cheating
had been done with them and in the
name of helping them get
compensation of hailstorms loss to
crops, and they came to know that
Bijender, Deen Mohammad, Ex-
Sarpanch Ravi Dutt and Harish
were hand in gloves with each other,
in hatching and executing the
conspiracy to usurp the agricultural
land of the Defendant s.
11.07.2016: Defendant complained to the police
and when no appropriate action was
taken by police, citing it a civil
mater, the Defendant herein move
the court and filed SUIT/ISTGASA
UNDER SECTION 156 (3) CRPC,
 U/s 420/467/471/120B/506 IPC.
It was registered as Suit No.
161/2016 in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate Palwal. The
matter was fixed for Preliminary
Evidence of complainant Hem Lata,
on NDOH 13.07.2016. This case is
going on…

13.07.2016: The matter in suit no. 161/2016

before CJM was adjourned for
30.08.2016.
20.08.2016: Defendant herein Smt. HEM LATA
along with her mother Smt. Somoti
filed CS No. 610/2016, CIVIL
SUIT FOR DECLARATION,
PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION.

06.09.2016: In utter shock given by the fraud

and cheating done by Plaintiff
Bijender in collusion with Harish,
Deen Mohammad and Ex-sarpanch
Ravi Dutt, and the harassment of
litigation and when no action was
taken by police and no justice was
given by the court, the mother of
Hem Lata, Smt. Somoti died on
06.09.2016. The Plaintiff Bijender
and Harish, Deen Mohammad and
Ex-sarpanch Ravi Dutt, are liable to
be punished for the killing of the
Defendant No. 2, i.e., mother of
Defendant No.1 by giving her
 harassment and utter shock by
cheating and breach of trust, and
criminal conspiracy of forging false
and fabricated documents of alleged
agreement to sale of her agricultural
land, which she never knew, nor
executed, nor received a single
penny as consideration amount. In
the list of LRs of Late Smt. SOMOTI,
Defendant No. 2 herein, the name of
her younger son (Harish) is not
included because he was
responsible for untimely death of his
mother by involving in the entire
conspiracy with Plaintiff Bijender
Singh and his aids including Sh.
Deen Mohammad, Ex-Sarpanch Sh.
Ravi Dutt and even did not file reply
in Court to help the Plaintiff
Bijender.

15.09.2016: Two parallel counter-suits were filed

by the Plaintiff herein (Thakur
Bijender Singh) against Smt. Hem
Lata (Defendant No.1 herein) and
her mother Smt. Somoti (now
deceased) for the two separate
agreement to sell, which CIVIL
SUITS FOR POSSESSION BY WAY
OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
CONTRACT have culminated in
CS/681/2016 AND Civil Suit No.
CS/682/2016.
15.11.2016: That Harish S/o Shiv Dutt, who is
real brother of Defendant No.1 was
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated
15.11.2016. He did not file any
written statement. Later on also he
did not take steps to set aside the
ex-parte order against him.

05.12.2019: Final Order passed in civil suit no

CS/610/2016, in case No. 266 of
2016 passed by the Ld. Court of Sh.
Pracheta Singh, CJ(JD), Palwal,
thereby dismissing the SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION. A
separate appeal has been filed
against the said order dated
05.12.2019 before District Judge
Palwal against the order of Sh.
Pracheta Singh CJ (JD) on
14.01.2020 and notice has been
issued in that appeal and next Date
of hearing is 24 March 2020.

5.12.2019 The final order in CS/681/2016

was passed by the Ld. Court of Sh.
Pracheta Singh, CJ(JD), Palwal on
05.12.2019. RFA with application
for stay on the operation of
impugned order, has already been
filed before District Judge Palwal
against the order of Sh. Pracheta
Singh CJ (JD) on 14.01.2020 and
 notice has been issued in that
appeal and next Date of hearing is
24 March 2020.

FACTS AND LAW OF THE PRESENT CASE

1. That the Defendants are co-owners in joint possession of

the suit land. That in the month of April 2016 younger

brother of Defendant No.1, Mr. Harish was in urgent

need of money for the marriage of his daughter, and

Plaintiff Bijender Thakur Bijender Singh used his

maverick skill and used his aids Sh. Deen Mohammad,

and Ex-Sarpanch Sh. Ravi Dutt. Neither the Defendant

was acquainted with the Court and where to go, nor the

late mother of Defendant No. 1 Smt. Somoti knew about

any plan of the Plaintiff Bijenders. As per plan all papers

were got purchased by Ex-Sarpanch Ravi Dutt and

Harish. They told that the papers were required for the

paisa/relief of previous loss to crops by hailstroms, to be

paid to them. Trusting Ex-sarpanch Ravi Dutt as an old

acquaintance including Harish as being her own real son,

illiterate old lady Smt. Somoti and her daughter did as

directed, for getting the hailstorms damage to crops,

compensation amount. Neither Hem Lata, nor her mother

got a single penny from Sh. Ravi Dutt (Ex-Sarpanch) who

was present there. Thakur Bijender Singh was not

 present there, and nor did he make any payment to the

the mother –daughter duo at any time.

2. That the aforesaid fraud and conspiracy of the Plaintiff

Bijender and his aids Sh. Deen Mohammad, Sh. Ravi

Dutt is more than clear from the facts that Harish real

brother of the Defendant No.1 came to village Tikri

Brahman on 16.04.16 to see Defendant No.1 and her

late mother Smt. Somoti. On 20.04.2016, in the presence

of Ghanshyam and Chander Dutt, residents of the same

village Tikri Brahman, Harish, along with [Link] Dutt

Ex-sarpanch, and Sh. Deen Mohammad, both of same

village, told Smt. Somoti and to Hemlata (Defendant

No.1 herein), that compensation for damage to crops due

to hailstroms for the year 2015 has to be given to them

by Tehsil Palwal. On this pretext, Plaintiff’s aids Deen

Mohmmad, Ex-sarpanch Ravi Dutt and Harish took the

Defendant No.1 and her late mother Somoti to Tehsil

Palwal for release of said compensation on 20.04.2016

and asked the Defendant No.1 and her mother to

purchase stamp papers, which they actually did not

know from where to purchase, so Ex-Sarpanch Ravi Dutt

did all that and also obtained their photographs on the

pretext that these documents would be deposited in the

Tehsil Office after getting application for compensation

prepared thereof. The Defendant no.1 and her late

mother, out of full faith upon Ex-sarpanch Ravi Dutt

and Harish (Real brother of Defendant no.1) complied

and gave signatures and thumb impression on those

stamp papers and some other blank papers. However, the

Defendant No.1 and her late mother defendant no.2 did

not receive any sort of compensation from Tehsil for

which they requested the Harish and Ex-Sarpanch Ravi

Dutt to look into the matter, who ignored the Defendant

No.1. On 09.06.2016 Deen Mohammad and Ravi Dutt

visited the late Defendant No.2 and asked them for

execution and registration and sale deed regarding suit

land in their favour. Which surprised the Defendants.

Sh. Deen Mohammad & Ex-Sarpanch Ravi Dutt showed

2 separate two agreements to sell dated 20.04.2016 to

the Defendants and threatened them with false litigation.

The Defendants then realized that these agreements were

prepared on the aforesaid blank stamp papers and pages

which were obtained from them by Deen Mohammad,

Ravi Dutt and Harish, on the pretext of compensation.

The Defendants requested Sh. Deen Mohammad, Ravi

Dutt and Harish to return the said papers to the

Defendants as they were fraudulent and forged, but to no

avail. Rather, they pressurized the Defendants and gave

them death threats for execution of sale deed. As such,

both the agreements are fraudulent, illegal and liable to

 be set aside, which were never intended to be executed

by the Defendant s. The possession of the suit lands were

never given to Plaintiff Bijender by the Defendants, who

still have the possession. No sale consideration was

received by the Defendants from Plaintiff (Thakur

Bijender Singh). The Plaintiff Bijender are bent upon

preparing more false and forged documents on those

blank signed papers of Defendants to grab the suit lands.

3. That on date 09.06.2016, when Sh. Deen Mohammad

and Harish visited the house of mother of Hem Lata,

Smt. Somoti came to know that cheating had been done

with them and in the name of helping them get

compensation of hailstorms loss to crops, and they came

to know that Plaintiff Bijender, Ravi Dutt, Deen

Mohammad and Harish were hand in gloves with each

other, in hatching and executing the conspiracy to usurp

the agricultural land of the Defendants.

3. That thereafter the Defendant No.1 Hem Lata and

Defendant No.2 Smt. Somoti (who later died) herein filed

complaints to police and also filed ISTGASA u/s 156 (3)

CrPC, and also Civil Suit for Declaration and Permanent

and Mandatory Injunction.

4. That it is most humbly reiterate time and again against

the cheating and fraud by the Plaintiff Thakur Bijender

Singh. It is further most humbly submitted that neither

Defendant No.1 nor her late mother Defendant 2 herein

made any agreement to sell with the Plaintiff Bijender,

nor received any single penny from the Plaintiff Bijender.

The allegation of two payments of 2 Lakh Rupees and 3

lakh Rupees on 20.06.2016 are totally false and baseless,

and fraudulent on the part of Plaintiff Bijender Singh and

his aids. That no strict proof of payment of Rupees 2

Lakh and 3 Lakh Rupees has been placed on record. Had

the Plaintiff been lawful, he would have mentioned his

PAN and Aadhar No., and also AADHAR Nos. of the

Sellers. Hence the theory of agreement to sell is totally

baseless, false, concocted and forgery by the plaintiff.

Hence the suit deserves nothing except dismissal.

5. That the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession

by Specific Performance of Contract:-

A. Because Sh. Deen Mohammad & Sh. Ravi Dutt

acted at the behest of Plaintiff Bijender Singh and

Mr. Harish S/o Shiv Dutt (real brother of Defendant

No.1) and in the name of help in getting

compensation amount of loss to crops by

hailstorms, from the Tehsil Office, they trapped the

illiterate Smt. Somoti (the mother of Defendant

 No.1) and got her thumb impression on papers, and

also the signatures of Defendant no.1 on papers,

which was a fraud played on the mother-daughter

duo. As soon as the fraud came to the knowledge of

Defendant No.2 Somoti and Defendant No.1 Hem

Lata, they immediately made complaints to the

police and filed suit in the court. These complaints

to Police and Suits by Hem Lata and Her late

Mother Somoti were filed much before the

alleged 3 months period of forged agreements

Dated 20.04.2016. It is most humbly submitted

that the alleged agreements to sell are void

contracts, as free consent of the Defendant No.1

and her late mother was never there. Being void

and unlawful, these two alleged agreements to sell

are not inforceable in law. Hence the present suit

deserves nothing except dismissal by this Hon’ble

court.

B. Because the Plaintiff in the alleged, false and

fabricated forged agreement to sell has mentioned

the share of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No. 2 as 2

KANAL 9 MARLA OUT OF TOTAL 17 KANAL 6

MARLA situate in village Tikri Brahman. The

plaintiff has by fraud and forgery mentioned the

share of Defendant no.1 and her late mother as

49/346 share, which is totally wrong and unlawful,

and this suit is liable to be dismissed on this very

ground. Because neither mitakshri Law, nor the

law of succession as per Hindu Succession Act,

1956, nor Indian Succession Act 1925 justify this

49/346 share. At the time of institution of the

present suit there were four (4) daughters and two

(2) sons and one (1) widow of the diseased Shiv

Dutt. Thus, total Seven LRs of Late Sh. Shiv Dutt

were on record at the time of filing of the present

suit No. CS/682/2016. As per set law the share of

each will be 1/7. Under which calculations and

under which law, in the Second Sentence of the

alleged Ikrarnama of 10 Rupees and 2 Lakh Rupees

fabricated receipt, the Share of Hemlata and her

mother Somoti is calculated 49/346 of total Rakba

17 Kanal 06 Marle. The same is mentioned in Para

No.1 of the plaint. Ld. The fraud of the Plaintiff

Bijender is clear from the above calculation

mentioned in the Ikrarnama/ Alleged fraudlent

agreement to sell. While the Share of Hemlata is 1/7

and Share of Somoti was also 1/7 and lawfully

calculating the combined share would be 1/7+1/7=

2/7 and not 49/346. This calculation mentioned in

the alleged agreement to sell leading to the present

 case and appeal is itself a proof of fraud and

conspiracy by the Plaintiff Bijender Singh and his

aids.

C. Because in the statements of Plaintiff Bijender and

his other aids/witnesses all have admitted that

Smt. Somoti was illiterate lady, then how could she

get mention all these controversial wordings in the

agreement to sell. How would she know the Khasra

Nos. and how would she get to know that combined

share of her and her one daughter together is

49/346 part of total 17 Kanal 06 Marle land. This

exposes the fraud of the Plaintiff Bijender Singh.

D. Because plaintiff has not approached the court

with clean hands and he has played fraud upon the

Defendant No.1 and 2. The proof of this is that the

plaintiff got mentioned in the alleged, false,

fabricated and forged agreement to sell, only

amount of Rupees Two Lakh but there is no

mention in the said Ikrarnama as to WHAT IS

THE TOTAL AMOUNT of the share of Hem Lata

and Share of Somoti. Further, there is no

mention as to what amount is left to be paid by

the buyer after making payment of Rupees 2

Lakh. Hence the alleged Ikrarnama is devoid of

necessary ingredients of a lawful contract, and is

 solely drafted with motive to deceit and play fraud

upon Defendant No.1 and illiterate Defendant No2

(who died of utter shock of fraud by her own son, in

collusion with Ex-Sarpanch Ravi Dutt, Deen

Mohammad for Thakur Bijender Singh). Hence this

suit filed by the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed

with costs and Fine for killing an innocent lady by

Criminal Breach of Trust, Fraud, by giving Mental

Tension, and threats.

E. Because there is no mention of the balance

consideration amount in the alleged fraudulent

agreement to sell, as to what amount is payable by

the buyer to the sellers after the payment of Rupees

Two Lakh only on 20.04.2016. This exposes the

fraud and conspiracy of Sh. Bijender Singh (Plaintiff

Bijender herein). Further in the evidence by way of

PW1/A Bijender Singh, PW2/A Deen Mohammad,

PW3/A nowhere mentioned what is the total

consideration amount, what amount was remaining

to be paid after payment of Rupees 2 (two ) Lakh to

the seller. This exposes the Fraud of the Plaintiff

herein. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be

dismissed with costs.

 F. Because the fraud of the Plaintiff Bijender is further

the calculation of land 17 Kanal 06 Marle, and

share of Hem Lata i.e., 1/7, is done as under:

8 Kanal = 1 Acre

1 Kanal =20 Marle

1 acre =4840 [Link]

8 Kanal =4840 sq. yds.

1 Kanal = 4840/8

= 605 sq. yds.

17 Kanal = 605x17= 10,[Link].

1 Kanal =20 Marle

20 Marle = 1 Kanal=605 sq. yds.

1 Marla = 605/20= 30.25 sq. yds

06 Marle = 30.25x06= 181.5 [Link].

Total 17 Kanal+ 06 Marle =10,[Link].+ 181.5 [Link].

= 10,466.5 sq. yds.

Now 1/7th share of Hemlata =13703.25/7

= 1495.21 [Link].

Price of 1 acre is mentioned 31 Lakh Rs.

4840 sq. yds= 31,00,000 Rs.

1 sq. yd. = 31,00,000/4840

1 sq. yd. = 640.49 Rs.

Total value of 1/7 share of Hem Lata

(Defendant no.1)

=1495.21 [Link]. X 640.49 Rs.

 = 9,57,669.79 Rs.

Thus value of 1/7 share of Late SOMOTI

= 9,57,669.79 Rs.

Total amount payable by buyer Bijender as

per his agreement to sell, on the basis of

which Ld. Trial Court has decided the case

for both Smt. Hem Lata and her mother

Late Smt. Somoti= 9,57,669.79 x2Rs =

= 19,15,339.59 Rupees

If 2, 00,000 (two Lakh rupees are deducted

from this total amount payable by buyer.

Then the balance consideration amount

comes out=

=19,15,339.59 Rupees- 2,00,000 Rupees

= 17,15,339.59 Rupees.

Hence on the basis of calculation shown

above, the suit devoid of correct amount

and fees there on as per Indian Stamps

act, 1970 is liable to be dismissed with

costs. Because neither paid stamp duty to

the collector of stamps for the alleged

transaction, nor paid court fees for the

relief of possession over the suit property

of value 19,15,339.59 Rupees.

G. Because the version of Defendant No.1 and Late

Defendant No.2 is true and fact that they had gone

to Tehsil on assurance of Sh. Deen Mohammad &

Sh. Ravi Dutt Ex-Sarpanch, for signing documents

for getting compensation of Hailstroms damage to

their crops from Tehsil office on 20.04.2016.

H. Because there was a reason to believe in Ex-

Sarpanch by Defendant No.1, because earlier also

the Defendant No.1 had received compensation

amount for damage to crops by Hailstroms and

received a cheque no. 063806 of Rs. 1081/- of

HDFC Bank, Branch Agra Chowk, G.T. Road,

Palwal, dated 01.07.2015, from the office of SDO

Civil, Palwal.

I. Because there was never any lawful division of the

joint property before any competent authority. It is

worth mentioning here that for partition of

agricultural land holding SDM/Revenue Assistant

concerned having jurisdiction is the competent

authority. No partition of joint family holding was

ever done as such Defendant No.1 (Hem Lata) and

her mother were not the only absolute owners of

their undivided share and hence incompetent to

enter into contract, and hence these alleged

 agreement/s to sell without the consent of other

co-sharers was/were void ab-initio.

J. BECAUSE both the alleged Agreements to Sell,

leading to the Cases between the parties, are

improper and hence not enforceable in law, in view

of the fact that both were purchased by Smt. Hem

Lata. Whereas it is always the buyer who pays for

the stamp papers and purchases stamp paper in

his name.

K. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that in both the alleged

IKRARNAMA/Agreements to Sell, only

Photographs of ONLY Smt. Somoti and her

dauther Smt. Hemlata are there. Why the

PHOTOGRAPH of buyer is not there on any of

the 2 separate AGREEMENT TO SELL? Whereas

photographs of both the buyer and seller must

be there, duly stamped by the notary, so that it

may not be altered in future. This proves that

the Plaintiff and his aids played fraud upon

Defendant No1 and her late mother. Hence this suit

for specific performance of fraudulent contract is

liable to be dismissed with costs.

L. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that on the backside of Stamp Paper both are

 purchased in the name of HemLata only. There is

no mention of name of Smt. Somoti w/o Shiv Dutt

on the back side of any of the 2 stamp papers of 10

rupees each.

M. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that there are no signatures of buyer (PW1/A

Plaintiff Bijender or his witnesses (PW2/A Deen

Mohammad, PW3/A to PW5) on First Page of

each of the 2 alleged Agreements to Sell.

N. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that that when the 2 Sellers (Hem Lata & Somoti)

were co-owners were same and the buyer was

same Plaintiff Bijender then why two separate

alleged Agreement to Sell were got made and two

separate receipts of Three Lakh and Two Lakh

Rupees of the same date 20.04.2016 were

prepared? This Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that transaction of two separate Khasra Nos. could

be mentioned in one agreement and the details of

payment against each could be shown by one

receipt only, then why the two separate receipts on

same date 20.04.2016 of Rs. 3, 00,000 & Rs.

200,000 = 5,00,000 (rupees five lakh)? This proves

 that plaintiff through his aids who are made

witnesses herein the present case have jointly

played fraud upon the Defendant No.1 and 2, by

fraudulently taking their signatures on the pretext

of helping them get compensation amount, which

they told to the defendants that it was being given

for the loss/damage to crops by hailstorms.

O. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that as per Section 17 of Indian Registration Act,

1908, any agreement to sell above the amount of

Rupees 100/- need to be registered with the sub-

registrar concerned. It is noteworth that here the

Plaintiff Bijender Singh/alleged buyer as per

concocted agreement/ikrarnama did not care to go

to the office of the sub-registrar to get his agreement

to sell registered. Whereas Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in its Landmark judgement Suraj Lamps &

Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.

2009 (7) SCC 363, has made it mandatory for

making them valid to be Registered with Sub-

Registrar Concerned, having jurisdiction. Why the

plaintiff did not got his agreement to sell executed

before Sub-Registrar concerned? Because

transaction actually did not take place. Only fraud

took place, which is more than evident from a bare

 perusal of the alleged ikrarnama/agreement to sell.

Further Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj

Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryan &

Anr on 11 October , 2011, authored by Justice

R.V. Raveendran, Justice A.K. Patnaik, and

Justice H.L. Gokhale held that – QUOTE:

Relevant Legal Provisions

7. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (`TP Act' for short)
defines `transfer of property' as under:

"5. Transfer of Property defined : In the following sections

"transfer of property" means an act by which a living person
conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other
living persons, or to himself [or to himself] and one or more
other living persons; and "to transfer property" is to perform
such act." xxx xxx Section 54 of the TP Act defines `sales' thus:
"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid
or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made. Such transfer, in the case of tangible
immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and
upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing,
can be made only by a registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less
than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by
a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the
seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in
possession of the property.
Contract for sale.-A contract for the sale of immovable
property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take
place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such
property."
Section 53A of the TP Act defines `part performance' thus :
"Part Performance. - Where any person contracts to transfer
for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed
by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to
constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable
certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the
contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof,
or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in
possession in part performance of the contract and has done
some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has
performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract,
then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of
transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner
prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the
transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred
from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming
under him any right in respect of the property of which the
transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a
right expressly provided by the terms of the contract : Provided
that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee
for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the
part performance thereof."
8. We may next refer to the relevant provisions of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1999 (Note : Stamp Laws may vary from state to
state, though generally the  provisions may be similar). Section
27 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 casts upon the party, liable to
pay stamp duty, an obligation to set forth in the instrument all
facts and circumstances which affect the chargeability of duty
on that instrument. Article 23 prescribes stamp duty on
`Conveyance'. In many States appropriate amendments have
been made whereby agreements of sale acknowledging delivery
of possession or power of Attorney authorizes the attorney to
`sell any immovable property are charged with the same duty
as leviable on conveyance.

9. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 which makes a deed of

conveyance compulsorily registrable. We extract below the relevant
portions of section 17.

"Section 17 - Documents of which registration is compulsory-

(1) The following documents shall be registered, namely:--
xxxxx
(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.
xxxxx (1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for
consideration, any immovable property for the purpose
of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of
1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after
the commencement of the Registration and Other Related
laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not
registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall
have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.

Advantages of Registration
10. In the earlier order dated 15.5.2009, the objects and benefits of
registration were explained and we extract them for ready reference :

"The Registration Act, 1908, was enacted with the intention of

providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to
transactions relating to immovable property and protection
from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is
achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types
of documents and providing for consequences of non-
registration.
Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any
document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports
or operates 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 Rs. 100 and
upwards to or in immovable property.
Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required
by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable
property comprised therein or received as evidence of any
transaction affected such property, unless it has been
registered. Registration of a document gives notice to the world
that such a document has been executed. Registration provides
safety and security to transactions relating to immovable
property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives
publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing
forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of
documents. Registration provides information to people who
may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the
rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other
words, it enables people to find out whether any particular
property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to
any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person/s
presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It
gives solemnity of form and perpetuate documents which are of
legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people
may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the
particulars are and as far as land is concerned what
obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every
person dealing with immovable property can rely with
confidence upon the statements contained in the registers
(maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account
of all transactions by which the title to the property may be
affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified."

Registration of documents makes the process of verification and

certification of title easier and simpler. It reduces disputes and
litigations to a large extent.
Scope of an Agreement of sale

11. Section 54 of TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is,
an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or
charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A.
Kamtam and Anr.

(1977) 3 SCC 247, observed:

A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or

charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section
54 of the Transfer of Property Act. See Rambaran Prosad v.
Ram Mohit Hazra [1967]1 SCR
293. The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created
by a contract for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The
personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described
in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation
arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of
property, but not amounting to an interest or easement
therein." In India, the word `transfer' is defined with reference
to the word `convey'. The word `conveys' in section 5 of
Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of
conveying ownership... ...that only on execution of conveyance
ownership passes from one party to another...."

In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra [2004 (8) SCC

614] this Court held:

"Protection provided under Section 53A of the Act to the

proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It
disentitles the transferor from disturbing the possession of the
proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to
such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of
the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the
property till it is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed
in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect possession against
the proposed vendor cannot be pressed in service against a third
party."

It is thus clear that a transfer of immoveable property by way of sale

can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a
deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law),
no right, title or interest in an immoveable property can be
transferred.

12. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered

deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements
of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor
transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited
right granted under section 53A of TP Act). According to TP Act, an
agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is
not a conveyance. Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of
immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument
and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its
subject matter.

Hence, in view of the LAW as held by Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, the suit as filed by the

plaintiff on the basis of UNREGISTERED

AGREEMENT TO SELL deserves nothing except

dismissal.

P. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that in every agreement to sell of any immovable

property contains its location and description

with its length and breadth, and also mention of

names of its neighbors in its sides and also the

size of the road, depicted by a proper site plan,

as prescribed in Order 7 Rule 3 of Civil

Procedure Code 1908. Here in both the alleged

fraudulent agreement to Sell, there is neither any

 site plan mentioned, nor the names of neighbors

or who are in north, or who are in south or East

and West side of the property for which the

agreement to sell is being signed has been

mentioned. Hence the alleged agreement to sell

is void. Hence the suit as filed by the plaintiff

deserves nothing except dismissal.

Q. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that there is no mention as to how many Rupees

were paid to Smt. Hem Lata ( Defendant No.1)

and how many rupees were paid to her mother

late Smt. Somoti. Hence the suit as filed by the

plaintiff deserves nothing except dismissal.

R. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that there is no mention of PAN NO. of the Buyer

(Plaintiff Bijender Singh) in both the 2 separate

Agreement to Sell. Neither AAdhar Number of

the Buyer nor the 2 Sellers, nor the AAdhar

Number or DL number of any of the two

witnesses has been mentioned on any of the 2

alleged Agreements to Sell. Hence, the

suppression of PAN NO. and AADHAR Number of

the buyer from the alleged agreement to Sell

makes it doubtful and not enforceable in law as

 both the agreements to sell have not been

prepared and executed as per law before

competent sub-registrar concerned by paying

relevant Stamp Duty to Collector of Stamps

concerned. Hence the suit as filed by the plaintiff

deserves nothing except dismissal by this Hon’ble

Court.

S. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that it is set law that for making payment above

Rupees Twenty Thousand only, the payment

must be made by Cheque or DD. Why did not the

Plaintiff Bijender Singh made payment by Cheque?

Because actually not a single penny was paid to the

Defendant No.1 and her mother late Defendant

No.2. Hence also the suit deserves to be dismissed

with costs.

T. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that it is duty of every Indian Citizen to abide by

the laws of the land, including Indian Income

Tax Act, 1961. Ld. Trial Court did not sought the

Income Tax Returns of the alleged buyer

Plaintiff (Bijender Singh) for the year 2015-16,

2016-17 and 2017-18, so that it may be

ascertained whether any black money is not

 used or it is not a sham transaction. Hence also

the suit deserves to be dismissed with costs.

U. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that the wording inside the alleged

ikrarnama/agreement to sell is not that are

required for it to be a valid contract. For a valid

contract there is special mention of who is the

First Party (Vendor) or Parties of the First Part

(Vendors) and who is the Second Party (Vendee).

Hence also the suit deserves to be dismissed with

costs.

V. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that there was no proof of any bank loan as

alleged in any of the alleged agreement to sell.

There is no mention of which bank’s loan and how

much loan. Further, when allegedly, the

buyer( Plaintiff Bijender Singh) knew that there

is loan pending against the immovable property,

then while the property was not free from

encumbrance, then why did Plaintiff Bijender

Singh went ahead to make advance payment to

buy such bank mortgaged property? If still he

moves ahead by way of this suit to buy a bank

mortgaged property, then the Plaintiff (Sh. Bijender

 Singh) is again in proven fault of law, that he fully

knew well that these two separately located

properties are mortgaged in Bank, then why did

he made payment of Two Lakh + Three Lakh = 5

Lakh on dated 20.04.2016? As per Indian

Contract Act in this situation also the Contract

was void ab-initio. Hence also the suit deserves to

be dismissed with costs.

W. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that while as per the alleged agreement, bank

loan was due against the suit land. The Doctrine

of Lis Pendis applied and the alleged transaction

was barred by Section 50 of Transfer of Property

Act, 1882. Hence also the suit deserves to be

dismissed with costs.

X. Because this Hon’ble Court should appreciate

that there is bald statement of Plaintiff Bijender

that there was bank loan without name whether

this loan was taken by Hem Lata or whether it

was taken by her mother Smt. Somoti from any

bank. Nothing has been clarified from the

Agreement to sell. Hence this alleged agreement

is fraud played upon the Defendants and hence

the case on this basis of this fraudulent

document is liable to be rejected by this Hon’ble

 Court. Hence also the suit deserves to be dismissed

with costs.

Y. That the two separate suit properties mentioned in

two separate agreements to sell are owned by and

are in possession of the Defendants As per Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India’s Judgment in Anathulla

Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy, on 25 March 2008,

Author Justice R. Raveendran, the plaintiff is not

entitled to relief of possession.

“ Quote Para 17

17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction

relating to immovable property, is as under :

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have
possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a
consequential injunction, is the remedy.”

Hence also the suit deserves to be dismissed with costs.

Z. That the Defendants had challenged the alleged

ikrarnama/agreements to sell (dated 20.04.2016)

immediately as the fraud came to the knowledge

of the defendants in June 2016 itself by

Criminal as well as Civil complaints and cases

before competent courts, much before the expiry

of 3 months period, expiring on 20 July 2016.

So there is no relevance of alleged attendance

before a notary PW3/A on 20 July 2016. Because

the said Hajiri in the form of affidavit is not

 entered in his Notary register. Further Bank

Account Statement of Plaintiff that on that date

He had Consideration Amount of 2 transctions

in his Account on 20.7.2016, have not been

produced on record. .

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may kindly be pleased to;

a) Dismiss the suit as filed by the plaintiff with exemplary

costs.

b) Pass any other further order(s) which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper, in the interest of Justice.

DEFENDANT No.1

DEFENDANT No.2 through LRs

THROUGH

Advocate for the DEFENDANTS

Palwal
Dated: ….. January, 2020
 IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURANG SHARMA, LD. CJJD,
PALWAL, HARYANA

CIVIL SUIT NO. 682 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Bijender Singh ….. Defendant
VERSUS
Hem Lata & Others ….. Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Hem Lata D/o Late Sh. Shiv Dutt and wife of Sh. Dheeraj
Sharma, Age ….., R/o Village Tikri Brahman, Tehsil & Distt.
Palwal, now presently residing at Village Kanchan Pur, District
Dholpur (Rajasthan), today at Palwal, do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the Defendant no. 1 in the above noted case
and am well conversant with the facts of the case and
competent to depose to the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying written arguments have been
drafted by my counsel on my instructions and have been
read over to me in my vernacular, and the same are true
and correct, on the basis of my knowledge and legal
advice received, believed to be true.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Palwal on this day of January 2020, that
the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT