Ram Chander Vs.

Ramdhari & others

IN THE COURT OF
SH. DHARAMPAL, CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
BAHADURGARH

HRJRA00007592012

Civil Suit No. : RBT-105/2012

CIS No. : CS-1923/2012

UID No. : HR-0420

Date of Institution : 30-11-2012/11-05-2018

Date of decision : 16-08-2023

Ram Chander son of Prabhu son of Molar, resident of village

Bupania, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (Haryana)

….. Plaintiff

Versus

1. Ramdhari son of Sangat Ram, resident of House No. 428, Sector

17, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon (Haryana).

2. Baljeet Singh son of Dhoop Singh son of Jhabbar, resident of

House No. 2534, Sector-1, Rohtak, District Rohtak (Haryana).

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

3. Sh. RK Tyagi, Advocate, Registration No. D/872/98, Tehsil

Complex, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

4. Sh. Daulat Ram, Advocate, Registration No. D/113/98, near Goal

Canteen, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi.

…… Defendants

SUIT FOR DECLARATION

Present: Sh. SS Lohchab, Advocate for the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The present suit has been instituted for seeking declaration

of General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-2001, Sale

Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004, Mutation No. 6647 dated

08-09-2007 of Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 and subsequent

revenue records of right on the basis of same qua land comprised in

Khewat No. 546/493 Min, Khatoni No. 584, Rectangle & Killa No.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

61/19/2/1 (1-12) & 137/2 (8-0) measuring 24 Kanal 06 Marla situated

within the revenue estate of village Bupania, Tehsil Bahadurgarh,

District Jhajjar (Haryana) as per Jamabandi (2002-03) [Herein after

referred as the suit property] to be illegal, null and void. Further, for

declaration of the plaintiff to be absolute owner in possession of the

suit property. Further, for consequential permanent injunction seeking

restrainment of defendant No. 1 & 2 from interference in to

possession of plaintiff on, his dispossession from, changing nature of,

creation of charge over, mortgage and alienation of the suit property.

Further, for mandatory injunction to defendant No. 2 to restore the

suit property to its original position in case of dispossession of

plaintiff from, changing nature of and alienation of the suit property

by the defendant No. 2 during pendency of suit.

Case of Plaintiff

2. Precise facts of the case of plaintiff are that he remained

absolute owner in possession of the suit property measuring 24 Kanal

6 Marla out of which 04 Kanal 16 Marla land comprised in Khasra

No. 137/2/2 (04-16) has been acquired by the State Government for

digging of KBC drain in the year 1978. So, he remained owner in

possession of remaining suit property measuring 19 Kanal 10 Marla

which he inherited from his father vide Mutation No. 6350.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

Previously, he had run his business under the name and style of M/s

Sant Haridas Glass Works, HUDA Complex, Rohtak for supply of

glasses on whole sale/retail basis and brother of defendant No. 2

namely Narender Deswal was running his business in the name and

style of Buniyad Builders, Sonipat road near Sheela Cinema, Rohtak.

So, they both were very well acquainted with each other. Elder

brother of defendant No. 2 namely Dhajja Ram Deswal was the

organizer of private committee and the plaintiff was also member of

that used to pay monthly installment on scheduled date to Dhajja Ram

Deswal. But due to sudden down fall in the business, the plaintiff

could not able to make payment of monthly installment of the

committee to said brother of defendant No. 2. Therefore, the

defendant No. 2 advised him to take loan from the Bank and for that

purpose, some revenue documents pertaining to his land were

obtained by the defendant No. 2 and the same were handed over to his

brother Dhaja Ram Deswal who was working as Manager in Central

Bank of India, Branch at Rohtak. So, the plaintiff left with no other

alternative, handed over copy of Jamabandi and other relevant

documents to said brother of defendant No. 2 in the month of

September, 2001 for grant of loan and said Dhajja Ram Deswal took

his signatures on some blank papers and stamp papers with assurance

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

that the loan will be got sanctioned within a sort span of time.

Thereafter, the plaintiff went to the New Zealand in June, 2002 to earn

his livelihood and returned to India in April, 2010. On 22-02-2006, his

son Sunil Lohchab along with some other villagers whose land was

also acquired, went to concerned office for taking compensation of

acquired land by the State Government but his son came to know that

the plaintiff is not owner in possession of the suit property and

purchase of same by the defendant No. 2 vide Sale Deed No. 1398

dated 28-05-2004 and got sanctioned its Mutation No. 6647 in his

favour as per relevant revenue records. Out of suit property, land

comprised in Khasra No. 64/5/1/2 (4-7) has been acquired by the State

Government for construction of National Highways in the year 2006

and compensation of that had been taken by the defendant No. 2 from

concerned department.

3. The plaintiff on his return to India from New Zealand in

April, 2010, inquired himself in to the matter and came to know about

alleged sale of suit property by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant

No. 2 vide Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 on the basis of

General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-2001 allegedly

executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1 in the Office of Sub

Registrar, Delhi & getting sanctioned its Mutation No. 6647 dated

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

08-09-2007 which are illegal, null & void being based upon fraud. So,

he challenged said instruments as well as subsequent revenue records

of right on the basis of same qua suit property on following grounds:

(a) That the impugned General Power of Attorney No.

3639/4 dated 24-09-2001 is illegal, null & void being result

of fraud played by the defendant No. 1 in connivance with

defendant No. 3 & 4 upon him. He neither purchased stamp

paper for, nor instructed the Deed writer to prepare General

Power of Attorney nor contacted defendant No. 3 & 4 nor

appeared before the office of Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali road,

Delhi to execute impugned General Power of Attorney

nor affixed his signatures thereon in presence & witnessing

of attesting witnesses nor made any statement before the

Sub-Registrar. The defendant No. 1 might have obtained the

stamp paper from his brother Dhajja Ram Deswal &

dishonestly had misused & prepared impugned General

Power of Attorney in his favour by impersonation &

misrepresentation in collusion with witnesses defendant No.

3 & 4.

(b) That the impugned Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-

2004 allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

defendant No. 2 on the basis of impugned General Power of

Attorney No. 3639 dated 24-09-2001, its Mutation No. 6647

dated 08-09-2007 and all subsequent revenue records also

remained illegal, null & void being result of fraud,

impersonation and misrepresentation.

(c) That impugned General Power of Attorney and

Sale Deed are mere paper transaction. No possession of

suit property had ever been delivered to alleged vendee. The

plaintiff is owner in actual cultivating possession over the

suit land property till present in which defendant No. 1 & 2

have no concern.

4. It is pertinent to mention that during course of time while

the plaintiff was in New Zealand, his son filed a Civil Suit titled

‘Sunil Lohchab vs. National Highway Authority and others’ before

Hon’ble Court of Ms. Ashu Sanjeev Tinjan, Additional Civil Judge

(Sr. Divn.) Bahadurgarh which was dismissed as withdrawn vide

order dated 23-01-2009. The matter was also reported to the Police

seeking action against defendants but of no avail.

5. The defendant No. 2 on the basis of impugned Sale Deed &

its Mutation has now started asserting his ownership rights over the

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

suit property & threatening him to interfere in to his possession &

dispossession therefrom the suit property. He has also started

threatening to change the nature & alienation of the suit property

illegally without any right therein. He has requested defendant No. 1

& 2 to get impugned instruments/documents cancelled & to desist

from their said acts but of no avail. Hence the present suit.

Case of Defendants

6. Defendant No. 1 & 2 contested the suit whereas suit against

defendant No. 3 & 4 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29-07-2013.

The defendant No. 1 in his written statement took preliminary

objections of no cause of action, no locus standi, es-topple of plaintiff

to file present suit, suppression of true and material facts from the

Court by the plaintiff, improper verification of the plaint, mis-joinder

and non-joinder of the necessary parties, non payment of requisite

court fee, limitation, non maintainability, false and frivolity of the

suit. Upon merits, admitting facts of existence of the suit property,

acquisition of land measuring 04 Kanal 07 Marla out of Khasra No.

64/5/1/2 (4-7) by State Government, taking of compensation of said

acquired land by defendant No. 2, inheritance of suit property by

plaintiff vide Mutation No. 6350 dated 04-05-2001, existence of

impugned General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-2001 in

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

favour of defendant No. 1, Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 on

the basis of General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-2001

in favour of defendant No. 2, its Mutation No. 6647 dated 08-09-

2007, filing of earlier Civil Suit by son of plaintiff titled ‘Sunil

Lohchab vs. National Highway Authority & others’ and its

withdrawal vide order dated 23-01-2009, denied rests of claim of the

plaintiff. It has been averred that the suit property is owned and

possessed by the defendant No. 2 in terms of valid & legal Sale Deed

No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 as well as Tatima Sale Deed No. 3462

dated 18-08-2004 in which the plaintiff has no right or concern. The

plaintiff remained aware of impugned General Power of Attorney as

well as impugned Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 since very

beginning. The plaintiff had sold out the suit property through his

General Power of Attorney for legal necessity of his family.

Impugned General Power of Attorney as well as impugned Sale Deed

are legal, genuine and validly binding upon all concerned including

the plaintiff. On 24-09-2001, the plaintiff himself purchased stamp

paper, asked the document writer to prepare General Power of

Attorney in favour of answering defendant, appeared before the Sub

Registrar, Asaf Ali road, Delhi, executed & got registered the General

Power of Attorney in favour of answering defendant in presence &

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

10

witnessing of defendant No. 3 & 4 at his own free will. No alleged

fraud had been played upon the plaintiff. So, the impugned General

Power of Attorney remained legal & valid. Further, answering

defendant being Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff, legally &

validly executed and got registered impugned Sale Deed No. 1398

dated 28-05-2004 in favour of defendant No 2 after receiving sale

consideration of Rs. 5,67,500/- from him & delivered possession

thereof the sold out suit property to the vendee at that time.

Subsequently, impugned Mutation of said Sale Deed also got

sanctioned as per law. Accordingly, the suit property is owned and

possessed by the defendant No. 2 who has every right to deal with the

same in the manner he likes. Further, once the plaintiff is not in

possession over the suit property, the question of interference in to his

possession & his dispossession therefrom does not arise at all. Lastly,

prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The defendant No. 2 in his written statement took

preliminary objections of no cause of action, no locus standi, es-topple

of plaintiff to file present suit, suppression of true and material facts

from the Court by the plaintiff, improper verification of the plaint,

mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties, non payment of

requisite court fee, limitation, non maintainability, false and frivolity

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

11

of the suit. Upon merits, admitting facts of existence of the suit

property, acquisition of land measuring 04 Kanal 07 Marla out of

Khasra No. 64/5/1/2 (4-7) by State Government, taking of

compensation of said acquired land by defendant No. 2, inheritance of

suit property by plaintiff vide Mutation No. 6350 dated 04-05-2001,

existence of impugned General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated

24-09-2001 in favour of defendant No. 1, Sale Deed No. 1398 dated

28-05-2004 on the basis of General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4

dated 24-09-2001 in favour of defendant No. 2, its Mutation No. 6647

dated 08-09-2007, filing of earlier Civil Suit by son of plaintiff titled

‘Sunil Lohchab vs. National Highway Authority & others’ and its

withdrawal vide order dated 23-01-2009, denied rests of claim of the

plaintiff. It has been averred the suit property is owned and possessed

by answering defendant in terms of valid & legal Sale Deed No. 1398

dated 28-05-2004 as well as Tatima Sale Deed No. 3462 dated 18-08-

2004 being bonafide purchaser with due consideration in which the

plaintiff has no right or concern. The plaintiff remained aware of

impugned General Power of Attorney as well as impugned Sale Deed

No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 since very beginning. He has purchased

the suit property from the plaintiff through his General Power of

Attorney in good faith for valuable consideration of Rs. 5,67,500/-

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

12

after proper inquiry about title of plaintiff over suit property as per

revenue records. Impugned General Power of Attorney as well as

impugned Sale Deed are legal, genuine and validly binding upon all

concerned including the plaintiff. On 24-09-2001, the plaintiff himself

purchased stamp paper, asked the document writer to prepare General

Power of Attorney in favour of answering defendant, appeared before

the Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali road, Delhi, executed & got registered the

General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No. 1 in presence

& witnessing of defendant No. 3 & 4 at his own free will. So, the

impugned General Power of Attorney remained legal & valid. Further,

the defendant No. 1 being Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff,

legally & validly executed and got registered impugned Sale Deed

No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 in favour of defendant No 2 after

receiving sale consideration of Rs. 5,67,500/- from him & delivered

possession thereof the sold out suit property at that time.

Subsequently, impugned Mutation of said Sale Deed also got

sanctioned in favour of answering defendant as per law. Accordingly,

the suit property is owned and possessed by the answering defendant

being bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration who has every

right to deal with the same in the manner he likes. Further, once the

plaintiff is not in possession over the suit property, the question of

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

13

interference in to his possession & his dispossession therefrom does

not arise at all. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Replication

8. The plaintiff filed replication to written statements of

defendant No. 1 & 2 wherein denying averments of written

statements, re-affirmed the version/stand of the plaint.

Issues for Determination

9. Following issues were framed for determination by the

Court vide order dated 07-11-2015 :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration

on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent

injunction on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory

injunction on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?

OPD

5. Relief.

Plaintiff’s Evidence

10. The plaintiff has examined ten witnesses – PW-1 Vinod

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

14

Kumar Sharma, Administration Officer, Bar Council of India, PW-2

Harish, Nodal Officer, PW-3 Virender Kumar, Record Keeper, office

of Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, PW-4 Jyoti Prakash, Patwari,

LAC, Jhajjar, PW-5 Dr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh (Affidavit Ex-PW5/A),

PW-6 Bijender (Affidavit Ex-PW6/A), PW-7 Satbir Singh (Affidavit

Ex-PW7/A), PW-8 Sh. Naveen Kumar Singh, Advocate, PW-9

Kapoor Singh,HRA Branch, Jhajjar & PW-10 Ram Chander, plaintiff

(Affidavit Ex-PW10/A). Besides, the plaintiff has also produced

following documentary evidence:

Ex-P1 Certified copy of application dated 11-02-

1997 of Singh Naveen Kumar to the Bar

Council of Delhi.

Ex-P2 Certified copy of receipt No. 20839 dated

11-02-1997 of Rs. 600/- issued in name of

Sh. Naveen Kumar Singh by Bar Council of

Delhi.

Ex-P3 Certified copy of undertaking of Sh. Naveen

Kumar Singh dated 28-01-1997.

Ex-P4 Certified copy of order sheet of Bar Council

of Delhi in respect of enrollment of Naveen

Kumar Singh as an Advocate.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

15

Ex-P5 Certified copy of application for

commencement of training of Naveen

Kumar Singh dated 28-01-1997 to Bar

Council of Delhi.

Ex-P6 Certified copy of letter of consent by the

Guide dated nil.

Ex-P7 Certified copy of Provisional Certificate

bearing No. 1641 dated 03-02-1997 in name

of Naveen Kumar Singh issued by Avdesh

Pratasp Singh University, Reewa.

Ex-P8 Certified copy of training certificate in

favour of Naveen Kumar Singh dated nil.

Ex-P9 Certified copy of Provisional Certificate

bearing No. 1842 dated 27-11-1996 in the

name of Naveen Kumar Singh issued by

University of Delhi.

Ex-P10 Certified copy of Affidavit of Naveen

Kumar Singh dated 10-02-1997.

Ex-P11 Certified copy of Affidavit of Naveen

Kumar Singh dated 11-02-1997.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

16

Ex-P12 Certified copy of Affidavit of Naveen

Kumar Singh dated 12-02-1998.

Ex-P13 Certified copy of attendance sheet for the

period February, 1997 to February, 1998 in

respect of Naveen Kumar Singh.

Ex-P14 Certified copy of Mark-sheet of B Sc (Part-

III) bearing Roll No. 65687 of Naveen

Kumar Singh.

Ex-P15 Certified copy of Mark-sheet of B Sc (Part-

II) bearing Roll No. 1981 of Naveen Kumar

Singh.

Ex-P16 Certified copy of Mark-sheet of B Sc (Part-

I) bearing Roll No. 3800 of Naveen Kumar

Singh.

Ex-P17 Certified copy of statement of marks bearing

Roll No. 359 dated 08-11-1996 of Naveen

Kumar Singh issued by University of Delhi.

Ex-P18 Certified copy of Mark-sheet of Higher

Secondary School Certificate Exam, 1986

bearing Roll No. 429233 of Naveen Kumar

Singh.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

17

Ex-P19 Certified copy of Higher Secondary School

Certificate Examination, 1986 bearing Roll

No. 429233 of Naveen Kumar Singh.

Ex-P20 Certified copy of Degree of Bachelor of

Science dated 19-07-1997 of Naveen Kumar

Singh issued by Avdhesh Pratap Singh

University, Reewa.

Ex-P21 Certified copy of statement of marks bearing

Roll No. 359 dated 08-11-1996 of Naveen

Kumar Singh issued by University of Delhi.

Ex-P21 [No. repeated inadvertently] Certified copy

of Mark sheet of B Sc (Part-III) bearing Roll

No. 65687 of Naveen Kumar Singh.

Ex-P22 Certified copy of Mark sheet of Higher

Secondary School Certificate Exam, 1986

bearing Roll No. 429233 of Naveen Kumar

Singh.

Ex-P23 Certified copy Mark sheet of B Sc (Part-II)

bearing Roll No. 1981 of Naveen Kumar

Singh.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

18

Ex-P24 Certified copy of Mark sheet of B Sc (Part-I)

bearing Roll No. 3800 of Naveen Kumar

Singh.

Ex-P25 Certified copy of Higher Secondary School

Certificate Examination, 1986 bearing Roll

No. 429233 of Naveen Kumar Singh.

Ex-P26 Certified copy of Provisional Certificate

bearing No. 1842 dated 27-11-1996 in the

name of Naveen Kumar Singh issued by

University of Delhi.

Ex-P27 Certified copy of application of Ram

Chander to obtain information under the RTI

Act to the Public Information Officer, SDM,

Dariyagang, New Delhi.

Ex-P28 Certified copy of letter No. RTI ID No. 9/

SDM(KB/HQ)/2011/1183 dated 27-01-

2012.

Ex-P29 Certified copy of letter No. F2/ RTI/ DC/ C/

Vig/2012/288 dated 21-01-2012.

Ex-P30 Certified copy of Memorandum No. F.7

(16)/2004/DOV/7995 dated 11-11-2004

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

19

issued by Chief Secretary, Directorate of

Vigilance, New Delhi.

Ex-P31 Certified copy of FIR No. [Link]-2005-A-

0037 dated 29-06-2005, under Section 120B

rw 420 IPC & Section 13 (2) rw 13(1) (d) of

PC Act, 1988, P.S. CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

Ex-P32 Certified copy of name of accused persons

listed in FIR No. [Link]-2005-A-0037

dated 29-06-2005, under Section 120B rw

420 IPC & Section 13 (2) rw 13(1) (d) of PC

Act, 1988, P.S/ CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

Ex-P33 Certified copy of contents of FIR No.

[Link]-2005-A-0037 dated 29-06-2005,

under Section 120B rw 420 IPC & Section

13 (2) rw 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, P.S.

CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

Ex-P34 Certified copy of action taken in FIR No.

[Link]-2005-A-0037 dated 29-06-2005,

under Section 120B rw 420 IPC & Section

13 (2) rw 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, P.S.

CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

20

Ex-P35 Certified copy of FIR No. 194/04 dated 24-

05-2004, under Section 120B, 420, 467,

468471 & 474 IPC, P.S. Kashmiri Gate,

Delhi.

Ex-P36 Certified copy action taken report in FIR

No. 194/04 dated 24-05-2004, under Section

120B, 420, 467, 468471 & 474 IPC, P.S.

Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.

Ex-P37 Certified copy of letter No. RTI/ SDM

(KB/HQ)/2012/895 dated 11-01-2012 –

Right to Information Act, 2005.

Ex-P38 Photocopy of General Power of Attorney

dated 24-09-2001.

Ex-P39 Certified copy of Field Book of village

Bupnia, District Jhajjar (Haryana) scheme

KCB drain Award No. 302 dated 31-03-

1978.

Ex-P40 Certified copy of notice under Section 9 of

Land Acquisition Act to land owners of

village Bupnia, District Jhajjar (Haryana).

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

21

Ex-P41 Photocopy of list of recipients of

compensation amount of acquired land.

Ex-P42 Photocopy of Award No. 302 for the year

1977-78 announced by Sh. JL Arora, Land

Acquisition Officer, Irrigation Department,

Rohtak.

Ex-P43 Expert opinion u/s 45 of Indian Evidence

Act.

Ex-P44 Expert opinion u/s 45 of Indian Evidence

Act.

Ex-P45 Photocopy of Certificate of Enrollment as

Advocate of Naveen Kumar Singh dated

10-03-1998.

Ex-P46 Certified copy of Jamabandi (2002-03) of

Khewat No. 546/493 of village Bupania,

Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar

(Haryana).

Ex-P47 Certified copy of Mutation No. 6350 dated

04-05-2001.

Ex-P48 Certified copy of Mutation No. 6647 dated

08-09-2004.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

22

Ex-P49 Certified copy of Aks-sazra of village

Bupania, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District

Jhajjar (Haryana).

Ex-P50 Photocopy of Republic of India Passport of

Ram Chander Singh.

Ex-P51 Attested copies of statements of Ram

Chander, Narender Deswal, Bijender, Satbir,

Ramdhari, Dhajja Ram & Baljeet Singh

recorded by Police, in Case RBT-395/23-09-

2013/03-09-2015 titled ‘Ram Chander vs.

Ramdhari and others’.

Ex-P51 [No. repeated inadvertently] Attested copy

of title page of complaint case No. 12-

RBT/06-04-2019 titled ‘Ram Chander vs.

Ramdhari and others’.

Ex-P52 Certified copy of letter Ref. No. Misc/ 90/

307/2018 dated 11-12-2018 in Case RBT-

395/23-09-2013/03-09-2015 titled ‘Ram

Chander vs. Ramdhari & others’.

Ex-P53 Attested copy of statement of Sh. RK Tyagi

in Case RBT-395/23-09-2013/03-09-2015

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

23

titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and

others’.

Ex-P53 [No. repeated inadvertently] Attested copy

of statement of Ram Chander in complaint

case No. 12-RBT/06-04-2019 titled ‘Ram

Chander vs. Ramdhari and others’.

Ex-P54 Attested copy of statement of Narender

Deswal in complaint case No. 12-RBT/06-

04-2019 titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari

and others’.

Ex-P55 Attested copy of statement of Bijender in

complaint case No. 12-RBT/06-04-2019

titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and

others’.

Ex-P56 Attested copy of statement of Satbir in

complaint case No. 12-RBT/06-04-2019

titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and

others’.

Ex-P57 Attested copy of statement of Ramdhari in

complaint case No. 12-RBT/06-04-2019

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

24

titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and

others’.

Ex-P58 Attested copy of statement of Dhajja Ram in

complaint case No. 12-RBT/06-04-2019

titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and

others’.

Ex-P59 Attested copy of statement of Baljeet Singh

in complaint case No. 12-RBT/06-04-2019

titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and

others’.

Ex-P60 Attested copy of statement of RK Tyagi in

complaint case No. 12-RBT/06-04-2019

titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and

others’.

Ex-P61 Attested copy of statement of Janeshwar in

complaint case No. 12-RBT/06-04-2019

titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and

others’.

Ex-P62 Attested copy of statement of Dharampal,

Draftsman in complaint case No.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

25

12-RBT/06-04-2019 titled ‘Ram Chander

vs. Ramdhari and others’.

Ex-PX Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1398 dated

28-05-2004.

Ex-PY Certified copy of Tatima Sale Deed No.

3462 dated 18-08-2004.

Defendants’ Evidence

11. Defendants have examined ten witnesses – DW-1 Baljeet

Singh, defendant No. 2 (Affidavit Ex-DW1/A), DW-2 Dhajja Ram

(Affidavit Ex-DW2/A), DW-3 Ramdhari, defendant No. 1 (Affidavit

Ex-DW3/A), DW-4 Dharampal, Deed Writer (Affidavit Ex-DW4/A),

DW5 Joginder Singh, HRC, DC office, Jhajjar, DW-6 Dharmender

Kumar, DEO, Sub Registrar Office, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, DW-7 SK

Tyagi, Section Officer, Education Department, old Secretariat, Delhi,

DW-8 Abhinay Gupta, Advocate, DW-9 Yogesh, Civil Ahlmad of the

Court of Ms. Jyoti, SDJM, Bahadurgarh & DW-10 Sh. VB Kashyap,

Handwriting and Finger Print Expert (Affidavit Ex-D10/A). Besides,

defendants have also produced following documentary evidence:

Ex-D1 Attested copy of plaint of Civil Suit No.

48 dated 02-03-2006 titled ‘Sunil

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

26

Lohchab vs. National Highway Authority

& others’.

Ex-D2 Attested copy of written statement on

behalf of defendant No. 3 in Civil Suit

No. 48 dated 02-03-2006 titled ‘Sunil

Lohchab vs. National Highway Authority

& others’.

Ex-D3 Attested copy of written statement on

behalf of defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit

No. 48 dated 02-03-2006 titled ‘Sunil

Lohchab vs. National Highway Authority

& others’.

Ex-D4 Certified copy of appeal in Civil Appeal

No. 23 of 02-05-2006 titled ‘Sunil

Lohchab vs. National Highway Authority

& others.’

Ex-D5 Certified copy of order dated 03-04-2007

in Civil Appeal 23 of 02-05-2006 titled

Sunil Lohchab vs. National Highway

Authority & others.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

27

Ex-D6 Certified copy of order dated 23-01-2009

in Civil Suit No. 48/02-03-2006 titled

‘Sunil Lohchab vs. National Highway

Authority & others’.

Ex-D7 Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1398

dated 28-05-2004.

Ex-D8 Certified copy of Tatima Sale Deed No.

3462 dated 18-08-2004.

Ex-D9 General Power of Attorney dated 24-09-

2001.

Ex-D10 Certified copy of Mutation No. 6350

dated 04-05-2001.

Ex-D11 Certified copy of Mutation No. 6647

dated 08-09-2004.

Ex-D12 Certified copy of Jamabandi (2002-03) of

Khewat No. 546/493 Min of village

Bupania, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District

Jhajjar (Haryana).

Ex-D13 Certified copy of Jamabandi (2007-08) of

Khewat No. 610/546 Min of village

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

28

Bupania, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District

Jhajjar (Haryana).

Ex-D14 Certified copy of Jamabandi (2012-13) of

Khewat No. 701/610 of village Bupania,

Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar

(Haryana).

Ex-D15 Certified copy of notice issued under

Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act to

land owner of Khewat No. 546 Khasra

No. 64/5/1/2 of village Bupnia, District

Jhajjar (Haryana) with Award No. 16

dated 22-02-2006.

Ex-D16 Attested copy of office order bearing

letter No. RO/PRS/2000-01/E-175/796

dated 28-06-2001 of Central Bank of

India.

Ex-D17 Copy of pension details of Dhoop Singh

Deswal.

Ex-D17 [No. repeated inadvertently] Attested

copy of Sale Deed No. 58 dated 02-05-

2003.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

29

Ex-D18 Attested copy of Sale Deed No. 434

dated 13-06-2003.

Ex-D19 Photocopy of complaint dated 11-0-2013

titled ‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and

others’.

Ex-D20 Photocopy of list of witnesses dated 11-

09-2013 in complaint titled ‘Ram

Chander vs. Ramdhari and others’.

Ex-D21 Photocopy of complaint No. RBT-395

dated 23-09-2013/03-09-2015 titled

‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and others’.

Ex-D22 Photocopy of statement of CW4 Ram

Chander in complaint No. RBT-395

dated 23-09-2013/03-09-2015 titled

‘Ram Chander vs. Ramdhari and others’.

Ex-D23 Photocopy of application of Ram

Chander Singh to Incharge, Police

Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh.

Ex-D24 Photocopy of report under Section 202

Cr PC dated 15-12-2018.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

30

Ex-D25 Photocopy of report under Section 202

Cr PC dated 16-12-2018.

Ex-DW8/B Photocopy of identity card issued by Bar

Council of Delhi in name of Sh. Abhinav

Gupta, Advocate.

Ex-DW10/1 Report of Finger Print and Handwriting

Expert bearing No. HF/108/2019 dated

05-09-2019.

Ex-DW10/2 Enlarged photograph of disputed thumb

impression.

Ex-DW10/3 Enlarged photograph of specimen thumb

impression.

Ex-DW10/4 Enlarged photograph of disputed thumb

impression.

Ex-DW10/5 Enlarged photograph of disputed thumb

impression.

Ex-DW10/6 Enlarged photograph of disputed thumb

impression.

Ex-DW10/7 Enlarged photograph of specimen thumb

impression.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

31

Ex-DW10/8 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/9 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/10 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/11 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/12 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/13 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/14 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/15 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/16 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/17 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

32

Ex-DW10/18 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/19 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/20 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/21 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/22 Enlarged photograph of specimen

signatures.

Ex-DW10/23 Enlarged photograph of specimen

signatures.

Ex-DW10/24 Enlarged photograph of specimen

signatures.

Ex-DW10/25 Enlarged photograph of specimen

signatures.

Ex-DW10/26 Enlarged photograph of admitted

signatures.

Ex-DW10/27 Enlarged photograph of admitted

signatures.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

33

Ex-DW10/28 Enlarged photograph of admitted

signatures.

Ex-DW10/29 Enlarged photograph of admitted

signatures.

Ex-DW10/30 Enlarged photograph of admitted

signatures.

Ex-DW10/31 Enlarged photograph of admitted

signatures.

Ex-DW10/32 Enlarged photograph of admitted

signatures.

Ex-DW10/33 Enlarged photograph of admitted

signatures.

Ex-DW10/34 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/35 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/36 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/37 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

34

Ex-DW10/38 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/39 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/40 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/41 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/42 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/43 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/44 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/45 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/46 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/47 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

35

Ex-DW10/48 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Ex-DW10/49 Enlarged photograph of disputed

signatures.

Mark-D1 Photocopy of order dated 21-03-2006 in

Civil Suit No. 48 of 2006 titled ‘Sunil

Lochab vs. National Highway Authority

etc’.

Mark-D1 [No. repeated inadvertently] Photocopy

of letter No. 1050/RTI dated 24-09-2018.

Mark-D2 Photocopy of application of Ram

Chander Singh to Incharge, Police

Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh.

Mark-D3 Photocopy of statement of Dhajja Ram

dated 01-01-2007 before Police.

Mark-D4 Photocopy of statement of Baljeet Singh

dated 01-01-2007 before Police.

Mark-D5 Photocopy of notice under Section 9 of

Land Acquisition Act to land owner

Baljeet Singh of village Bupnia, District

Jhajjar (Haryana).

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

36

Mark-D6 Photocopy of Award No. 16 dated 22-02-

2006.

Mark-D7 Photocopy of cheque No. 380025 dated

24-03-2006 for Rs. 9,86430/- in name of

Baljeet Singh.

Rebuttal Evidence

12. The plaintiff led no evidence in rebuttal.

Arguments of Parties

13. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

Learned counsel for parties argued their case by retreating contentions

of their respective pleadings vis-a-vis evidence on records. Learned

counsel for the plaintiff cited case laws “Suraj Lamp and Industries

Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and another, 2011 (5) RAJ 397” in

support of his contentions in general on related aspects of matter

under determination. Learned counsel for defendants cited case laws

“Tehal Singh & another vs. Shamsher Singh, 2015 (81) RCR (Civil)

676”, “Maya Devi (Since deceased) through LRs vs. Amarjit Kaur &

others, 2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 1004”, “Sant Ram vs. Brij Mohan Kaura

& another, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 769”, “Pakhar Singh vs. Gurdial

Singh & others, 1999 (1) Land LR 237”, “Gajjan Singh vs. Virsa

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

37

Singh & others, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 3”, “Bharat Bhushan & others

vs. Anand Kumar & others, 2016 (3) Law Herald 2475”, “Maya vs.

Mohinder Singh & others, 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 536”, “Gurmail

Singh vs. Rajinder Kumar & another, 2014 (61) RCR (Civil) 341”,

“Amar Kaur vs. Paramjit Kaur, 2003 (3) RCR (Civil)”, “Satwinder

Kaur alias Satinder Kaur vs. Surjeet Singh & others, 2007 (2) PLR

346” & “Diwan Chand vs. Sardari Lal, 2009 (53) RCR (Civil) 570”

in support of his contentions in general on related aspects of matter

under determination. Relevant case law if any, will be referred in later

part of the judgment.

Findings on Issues

14. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for parties,

perused the records and after bestowal of thought over the whole

matter, the Court concludes issue wise findings as under:

Issue No. 1

15. The onus to prove the issue remained on the plaintiff. It

involved the question of entitlement of the plaintiff to declaration as

prayed for. In nutshell, the plaintiff has sought declaration of

impugned General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-2001,

Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004, Mutation No. 6647 dated

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

38

08-09-2007 of Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 and subsequent

revenue records of right on the basis of same qua suit property to be

illegal, null & void. He has also sought declaration of his ownership in

possession over the suit property. To prove the issue, the plaintiff has

adduced evidence as described in para 10 above. To rebut evidence of

the plaintiff, defendants adduced evidence as described in para 11

above.

16. Upon the issue, at the outset, facts of existence of the suit

property [Ex-P46 & Ex-D12], acquisition of land measuring 04 Kanal

07 Marla out of Khasra No. 64/5/1/2 (4-7) by State Government [Ex-

P40 to P42 & Ex-D16], taking of compensation of said acquired land

by defendant No. 2 [Ex-P41], inheritance of suit property by plaintiff

vide Mutation No. 6350 dated 04-05-2001 [Ex-P47 & Ex-D10],

existence of impugned General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated

24-09-2001 of plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 [Ex-P38 & Ex-

D39], Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 [Ex-PX & Ex-D7] on

the basis of General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-2001

in favour of defendant No. 2, its Mutation No. 6647 dated 08-09-2007

[Ex-P48 & Ex-D11], filing of earlier Civil Suit by son of plaintiff

titled ‘Sunil Lohchab vs. National Highway Authority & others’ and

its withdrawal vide order dated 23-01-2009 [Ex-D6] are admitted

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

39

facts in pleadings of defendant No. 1 & 2 and so, the same need no

further proof in terms of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

qua said defendants. As far as defendant No. 3 & 4 are concerned,

they have nothing to dispute these facts on account of they being ex-

parte.

17. Next, the plaintiff has challenged aforesaid impugned

General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-2001, Sale Deed

No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004, Mutation No. 6647 dated 08-09-2007 of

Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 and subsequent revenue

records of right on the basis of same qua suit property on grounds

mentioned at para 3 (a) to (c) above which broadly remained based

upon pleas of fraud, misrepresentation & paper transaction. Further,

sought declaration of ownership in possession of the plaintiff over the

suit property remains contingent upon declaration of impugned

instruments/ documents to be illegal, null & void. Upon appreciation

of evidence of parties vis-a-vis respective claim/version, the Court

reached to conclusion by preponderance of probability of evidence

that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case under the issue so as to

entitle him to declaration of impugned instruments/documents to be

illegal, null & void and in turn, declaration of his ownership &

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

40

possession over the suit property, for reasons to follow in succeeding

paras.

18. The core plea of the plaintiff for challenge to aforesaid

instruments/documents remained fraud & misrepresentation. So, let to

have glance on settled principles of law on this aspect first before

proceeding appreciation of evidence. It is settled principles of law that

the mode and manner of fraud & misrepresentation must be

specifically pleaded and proved beyond all reasonable doubts like in

criminal case. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case titled “Lynette Fernandes vs. Mrs. Gertie Mathias,

2017 AIR (SC) 5453” wherein it had been held that party alleging

fraud & undue influence must set forth full particulars of fraud and

case can be decided only on particulars laid out. General allegations of

fraud and undue influence are insufficient. Reliance is also placed on

judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in

“Gurdrawinder Singh vs. Balwinder Singh, 2019 (2) Punjab Law

Reporter 134” wherein it has been held that for proving fraud, the

standard of proof is very high, equivalent to the standard of proof

required to prove guilt of accused in criminal case beyond reasonable

doubts.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

41

19. Next, impugned General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4

dated 24-09-2001 [Ex-P38 & Ex-D39] & Sale Deed No. 1398 dated

28-05-2004 [Ex-PX & Ex-D7] remained registered instruments as

evident from said instruments itself. So, let to first have glance over

settled principles qua legal presumption of a registered instrument. It

is well settled position of law that a registered instrument has legal

presumption of its valid execution, authenticity, correctness and

registration as per law of registration which is rebuttable by cogent &

convincing evidence only. Registration of document has presumption

of genuineness and so, Court can not ignore it. On said principles,

reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court in case titled “Bant Singh & Another vs. Didar Singh & Others,

2018 (2) CCC 436” & “Prem Singh & others vs. Birbal & others,

2006 (5) SCC 353” wherein it had been held so.

20. Next, the plaintiff has also challenged impugned Mutation

No. 6647 dated 08-09-2007 [Ex-P48 & Ex-D11] and subsequent

revenue records based upon that to be illegal, null & void. These

records remained revenue records of rights. So, let to have first glance

over legal presumption attached with such records. There remains legal

presumption of correctness/truth with revenue records in terms of

Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (As applicable to

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

42

Haryana) which is rebuttable by cogent & convincing evidence only.

On this aspect, reliance is placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case titled “Harish Chander & others vs. Ghisa Ram &

another, 1981 (1) SCC 431” & of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court in “Mangal Singh & another vs. Manphul Singh, 1961 PLR

177” & “Major Singh & another vs. Mukhtiar Singh, 2009 (4) RCR

(Civil) 97” wherein it had been held so.

21. Next, it remained consistent version of the plaintiff that the

impugned General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-2001

Ex-P38 & Ex-D9 remained result of fraud played by the defendant

No. 1 in connivance with defendant No. 3 & 4 upon him. It remained

version of the plaintiff that he neither purchased stamp paper for, nor

instructed the Deed writer to prepare General Power of Attorney nor

contacted defendant No. 3 & 4 nor appeared before the office of Sub

Registrar, Asaf Ali road, Delhi to execute impugned General Power of

Attorney nor affixed his signatures thereon in presence & witnessing

of attesting witnesses nor made any statement before the

Sub-Registrar, Delhi. The defendant No. 1 might have obtained the

stamp paper from his brother Dhajja Ram Deswal & dishonestly had

misused & prepared impugned General Power of Attorney in his

favour by impersonation & misrepresentation in collusion with

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

43

witnesses defendant No. 3 & 4. There remained no allegation of fraud

or misrepresentation against the defendant No. 2 as well as the

Sub-Registrar, Delhi or its officials. It also remained version of the

plaintiff in nutshell that defendant No. 2 has two brothers namely

Narender Deshwal & Dhajjar Ram Deswal. He is well acquitted with

Narender Deswal on account of both having respective business in

Rohtak whereas Dhajja Ram Deswal was working as Manager in

Central Bank of India, Branch at Rohtak & also he was the organizer

of private committee (Kind of chit fund) wherein he was also member

and used to pay monthly installment on scheduled date to Dhajja Ram

Deswal. However, due to sudden down fall in the business, he could

not able to make payment of monthly installments of the committee

to Dhajja Ram Deswal. Therefore, the defendant No. 2 advised him

to take loan from the Bank and for that purpose, some revenue

documents pertaining to his land were obtained by the defendant No.

2 and the same were handed over to his brother Dhajja Ram Deswal.

So, the plaintiff handed over copy of Jamabandi and other relevant

documents to Dhajjar Ram Deswal in the month of September, 2001

for grant of loan and said Dhajja Ram Deswal took his signatures on

some blank papers and stamp papers with assurance that the loan will

be got sanctioned within a sort span of time. Thereafter, the plaintiff

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

44

went to the New Zealand in June, 2002 to earn his livelihood and

returned to India in April, 2010.

22. Upon aforesaid version/claim, the plaintiff as PW-10 in his

affidavit Ex-PW10/A of evidence has retreated the aforesaid version

by narrating version of the plaint. Besides, PW-6 Bijender & PW-7

Satbir Singh have also in their respective affidavit of evidence have

narrated facts in similar manner as the plaintiff. Besides, to prove the

fact of enrollment No. D/113/98 written on impugned General Power

of Attorney Ex-P39 & Ex-D9 to be of Advocate Naveen Kumar Singh

instead of Advocate Daulat Ram (Defendant No. 4), plaintiff

examined PW-1 who brought records of documents Ex-P1 to P26

before the Court. PW-3 brought records of the office of Sub-

Registrar-III, Asaf Ali road, Delhi and proved copy of impugned

General Power of Attorney No. 3639 dated 24-09-2021 Ex-P38 to be

correct as per records. PW-5 proved his handwriting & finger print

opinion report Ex-P43 & P44. But from evidence of said witnesses of

plaintiff, alleged fraud & misrepresentation are not proved beyond

required all reasonable doubts like in criminal case as required to be

proved so in terms of well settled principles of law on this aspect.

PW-10 in his whole examination in chief failed to state anything as

how he knew the defendant No. 2 and under what circumstances,

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

45

defendant No. 2 advised him to take loan from the Bank and for that

purpose, when & where he obtained some revenue documents

pertaining to land of plaintiff from him and handed over to his brother

Dhajja Ram Deswal. Rather, he simply deposed on the factum of his

well acquaintance with brother of defendant No. 2 namely Narender

on account of business and with Dhajja Ram Deswal on account of

being organizer of local committee with his membership therein. The

plaintiff at one place in para 4 of his affidavit Ex-PW10/A stated

about obtaining of some revenue documents pertaining to his land by

defendant No. 2 from him and handing over of the same to his brother

Dhajja Ram Deswal but at another place in same para, he stated about

handing over of copy of Jamabandi & other relevant documents to

brother of defendant No. 2 namely Dhajja Ram Deswal in the month

of September, 2001 for grant of loan & taking of his signatures over

blank papers & stamp papers by Dhajja Ram Deswal with assurance

to get sanctioned the loan within short span of time. If so, it clearly

means the plaintiff is not even sure about handing over of alleged

documents either to defendant No. 2 or to his brother Dhajja Ram

Deswal. Nothing in his evidence as why defendant No. 2 who is not

even acquainted with the plaintiff will advice for taking loan from

Bank and why the plaintiff allegedly handed over requisite documents

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

46

for taking loan to such unknown person who is even not working in

any Bank. So, under such factual matrix, further question of alleged

obtaining of such papers by defendant No. 1 from his brother Dhajja

Ram Deswal and alleged misuse of same by preparing impugned

General Power of Attorney became highly doubtful aspect from

testimony of plaintiff himself.

23. Further, the plaintiff as PW-10 in his examination in chief

has stated on the factum of advising him by defendant No. 2 for taking

loan from the Bank whereas in his cross-examination specifically

admitted the fact of non advising him for taking loan from any bank

by Baljeet Singh (Defendant No. 2) to be correct. Rather, he further

stated about rendering of such advice by younger brother of defendant

No. 2 namely Narender. PW-10 in his examination in chief stated

about running of private committee (Kind of chit fund) by Dhajja

Ram Deswal, he being member of that and paying installments of

same to Dhajja Ram Deswal but in his cross-examination specifically

stated that he has no written proof of running of said committee. If so,

there remained no reasonable basis for the plaintiff to alleged said

facts against Dhajja Ram Deswal. It is highly improbable that a person

used to pay installment to alleged organizer of the committee but has

no receipt at all of paid money or any documentary evidence of such

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

47

transaction or of membership etc. The plaintiff even failed to state

anything as what was total amount for which he obtained membership

of the private committee and what was monthly installment for

payment of that amount and what amount of installments he had

already paid to said Dhajja Ram Deswal. It means, except bald

version of the plaintiff, no cogent evidence of organizing of such

alleged private committee by Dhajja Ram Deswal. Similarly, PW-6 in

his cross-examination stated that he no proof of running of committee

by Dhajja Ram Deswal. He further stated that he is not the member of

committee run by Dhajja Ram Deswal or any other committee & can

not tell details of the committee. Similarly, PW-7 in his cross-

examination stated that he does not know about running of committee

by Dhajja Ram Deswal. If so, version of PW-10 on said aspects can

not be simply believed to be true.

24. Further, the plaintiff as PW-10 has stated about handing

over of documents to Dhajja Ram Deswal for grant of loan in the

month of September, 2001 as well as obtaining of his signatures on

blank papers & stamp papers whereas PW-6 in his affidavit Ex-

PW6/A failed to state any date, month or year of handing over of

documents for loan to Dhajja Ram Deswal by the plaintiff. On this

aspect, his version remained general except stating in cross-

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

48

examination the year 2001 of such handing over of documents. PW-7

who stated about taking of documents of land, blank stamp paper, one

photo & ID proof by the plaintiff to house of Dhajja Ram Deswal but

in entire affidavit Ex-PW7/A, he did not state anything about handing

over of any such documents by the plaintiff to Dhajja Ram Deswal.

Like, PW-6, this witness also remained silent in examination in chief

about date, month & year of going to the house of Dhajja Ram Deswal

along with the plaintiff. In his cross-examination stated that he can not

tell date & month of going to Dhajja Ram Deswal but it was year

2001. Further, the plaintiff (PW-10) in his cross-examination stated

that when he handed over documents to Dhajja Ram etc., at that time

Bijender & Sukhbir were with him. It means PW-7 Satbir Singh was

not with the plaintiff at the said point of time whereas PW-7 stated so

which runs counter to version of plaintiff but in either case, said factor

reflected adversely upon the case of plaintiff. Further, plaintiff is well

educated person having educational qualification of Master of

Commerce as stated in his cross-examination (PW-10). If so, it is

highly improbable if not possible to hand over blank signed papers &

stamp papers to Dhajja Ram Deswal or to the defendant No. 2 for

obtaining loan. Even if, he handed over some documents for obtaining

loan, it remained highly improbable on his part not to en-quire about

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

49

factum of getting loan or not subsequently from person to whom he

allegedly handed over requisite documents. The plaintiff stated about

handing over of documents to Dhajja Ram Deswal as well as

defendant No. 2 in the month of September, 2001 with assurance to

get loan within short span and as per his own version he went to New

Zealand in June, 2002 & returned therefrom in April, 2010. As per

his own version he was advised to take loan for payment of

installments of committee which he could not able to do so due to

down fall in his business. If so, it is highly improbable that the

plaintiff will not ask said person Dhajja Ram Deswal as what

happened to grant of loan and if not, to ask for return of allegedly

handed over documents. Nothing on the part of the plaintiff as from

where he arranged money to pay alleged installments of the

committee, in case he did not get loan after alleged assurance of

Dhajja Ram Deswal to get so within short span. Thus, again version of

the plaintiff does not transpire confidence of the Court.

25. Further, the plaintiff in plaint as well as PW-10 in his

affidavit of evidence Ex-PW10/A at its para 4 stated about handing

over of copy of Jamabandi and other relevant documents to the

brother of defendant No. 2 Dhajja Ram Deswal in the month of

September, 2001 for grant of loan and obtaining his signatures over

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

50

some blank papers and stamp papers by Dhajja Ram Deswal with

assurance to get loan within short span of time but no version of

obtaining his thumb impressions over blank papers & stamp papers.

But despite of said version, PW-6 in his affidavit of evidence Ex-

PW6/A stated about obtaining of signatures as well as thumb

impressions of plaintiff by Dhajja Ram Deswal on blank Stamp paper

which runs counter to version of the plaintiff. Either version of

plaintiff is wrong or of PW-6 but in either case, said factor adversely

reflected upon the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is better person to

know about obtaining of his signatures or thumb impressions or both

on blank papers and stamp papers by Dhajja Ram Deswal. In case as

per own version of the plaintiff, Dhajja Ram Deswal obtained his

signatures on blank papers or stamp papers, then, there should not be

any possibility of presence of his thumb impressions over impugned

General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-2001 Ex-P38 &

Ex-D9 in case defendant No. 1 fraudulently got prepared the same in

connivance with defendant No. 3 & 4 on those paper allegedly handed

over to said Dhajja Ram Deswal for obtaining loan. But surprisingly,

the plaintiff as PW-10 in his cross-examination has specifically

admitted his thumb impressions over point TCD-1 & TCD-2 over

Ex-P38 (Certified copy of impugned General Power of Attorney) and

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

51

stated that the same were obtained later on but self qualified by stating

that these were obtained at the house of Dhajja Ram, Baljeet &

Narender & not at the time of purchase of stamp paper. It means he

admitted his thumb impressions as well as purchase of stamp paper of

impugned General Power of Attorney Ex-P38 & Ex-D9. These thumb

impressions remained on back side portion of impugned General

Power of Attorney Ex-P38 & Ex-D9 just by the side of the

endorsement of Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi. If so, it means by

necessary implications/inferences of said facts that said thumb

impressions were obtained at the time of registration of the impugned

General Power of Attorney before Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi.

From the sense of deposition of plaintiff on said aspect wherein he

after admitting his thumb impressions over Ex-P38 stated about

obtaining of thumb impression later on, means even after alleged

handing over of stamp paper to Dhajja Ram Deswal his thumb

impressions were obtained later on & later on stage remained at the

time of presentation for registration of the instrument before Sub-

Registrar-III, New Delhi. Further, from said version of the plaintiff, it

is clear that the stamp paper of impugned General Power of Attorney

was purchased by plaintiff himself and allegedly handed over to

Dhajja Ram Deswal which subsequently misused by defendant No. 1

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

52

in collusion with defendant No. 3 & 4 for preparation of impugned

General Power of Attorney Ex-P38 & Ex-D9. In case, the plaintiff

was not intended to execute any General Power of Attorney, then

there remained no possibility of purchase of stamp paper for the said

purpose. Perusal of reverse side of stamp paper of Ex-D9 shows

endorsement of stamp vendor dated 19-09-2001 regarding sale of

stamp to the plaintiff for the purpose of GPA (General Power of

Attorney). It is not the case of plaintiff that defendant No. 2 or his

brother Dhajja Ram Deswal asked him to purchase stamp paper for

the purpose of execution of General Power of Attorney for the

purpose of taking loan. Though the plaintiff even denied of purchase

of any stamp paper for the purpose of execution of General Power of

Attorney in his affidavit of evidence Ex-PW10/A but in case he never

purchased any stamp paper for said purpose, then from where the

endorsement of stamp vendor appeared on impugned General Power

of Attorney apparent from document Ex-D9 itself. There is no

specific denial of the plaintiff regarding stamp paper over which

appears his admitted thumb impressions was not purchased by him. In

case he did not purchase stamp paper of impugned General Power of

Attorney Ex-D9, then in that case, his own version of handing over of

blank signed stamp paper to Dhajja Ram Deswal in September, 2001

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

53

& its subsequent alleged misuse in preparation of impugned General

Power of Attorney by the defendant No. 1 in connivance with

defendant No. 3 & 4 itself stands negated. In case, the plaintiff’s

version regarding stamp paper of Ex-D9 to be same which he thumb

marked on blank & handed over to Dhajja Ram Deswal, then his

version regarding never purchase of any stamp for the purpose of

execution of General Power of Attorney stands negated. Be it so, but

in either case, said factors run counter to own version of the plaintiff

and adversely reflected upon his credibility.

26. Further, the plaintiff as PW-10 in his cross-examination has

also admitted his signatures on point ‘D-1’ on front portion of first

page of impugned General Power of Attorney Ex-D9. He further self

stated in his cross-examination after denial of his signatures over

document (Ex-D9) at point D5, D6 & D7 that his signatures were got

done over front i.e first page front portion as point D5 to D7 remained

on reverse side of first page of stamp paper of impugned General

Power of Attorney Ex-D9. It means, the plaintiff admitted his

signatures over front portion of first page of Ex-D9 also. As already

discussed above, plaintiff has expressly admitted his thumb

impressions at two places at point TCD-1 & TCD-2 by the side of

endorsement of Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi over Ex-P38 & Ex-D9.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

54

PW-6 & 7 are not even aware of as from where the plaintiff purchased

the stamp paper which he allegedly handed over to Dhajja Ram

Deswal as they in respective cross-examination expressed their

ignorance of said fact. Further, though the plaintiff has denied his

signatures on Ex-P38 & D9 except on first page but in case his

version remained of misuse of blank signed papers & stamp papers

handed over to Dhajjar Ram Deswal for obtaining loan from the Bank

for preparation of impugned General Power of Attorney, then there

remained implied admission of signatures over impugned General

Power of Attorney to be of the plaintiff. It is not the case of the

plaintiff that some one else has forged his signatures over impugned

General Power of Attorney. If so, his version of denial of his

signatures over impugned General Power of Attorney except over first

page, pale in to insignificance in such factual matrix of the case of

plaintiff. Thus, in nutshell, under said factual & evidential position in

hand, claim & version of the plaintiff does not transpire confidence of

the Court and in turn, his testimony as well as testimony of PW-6 & 7

suffered from credibility. Their evidence can not be accepted to be

reliable on aspects of impugned General Power of Attorney Ex-P38 &

Ex-D9 to be result of alleged fraud on account of afore described

reasons.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

55

27. Next, as far as alleged connivance of defendant No. 4 in

preparation & registration of impugned General Power of Attorney

Ex-P38 & Ex-D9 is concerned, no iota of plaintiff’s evidence came on

record to show his involvement in alleged overt acts. Neither of

plaintiff’s witness stated anything regarding involvement of defendant

No. 4 in alleged overt act of fraud or misrepresentation in preparation

of impugned General Power of Attorney. Neither the impugned

General Power of Attorney Ex-P38 & Ex-D9 finds mention of name

of defendant No. 4 nor the plaintiff proved the fact of enrollment No.

D/113/98 of Advocate shown as one of witness over Ex-D9 to be of

Daulat Ram, defendant No. 4. Rather, as per version of PW-1 read

with documents Ex-P1 to P-26, said enrollment No. initially remained

of Advocate Naveen Kumar Singh (PW-8) as evident from Certificate

of enrollment as Advocate of Naveen Kumar Singh Ex-P45 which

after review was changed to D/140/1997 (R) as deposed by PW-8. It

means after review of said enrollment No. of PW-8, enrollment No.

D/113/98 was probably allotted to some other Advocate of which no

evidence so as to co-relate that to the defendant No. 4 Daulat Ram,

Advocate. Nothing evident from testimony of PW-8 read with Ex-P45

as when the said enrollment No. was revised/reviewed so as to co-

relate that to the date of execution & registration impugned General

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

56

Power of Attorney on 24-09-2001. Though PW-8 in his testimony

denied of his signatures as witness No. 2 over impugned General

Power of Attorney Ex-P38 & Ex-D9 & never identification of parties

Ram Chander & Ramdhari as well as his non appearance before the

Sub-Registrar, Delhi but once enrollment No. D/113/1998 written

over Ex-D9 of witness No. 2 had been revised to D/140/1997 (R) of

PW-8, question of signatures of PW-8 on Ex-D9 does not arise at all.

No other evidence of the plaintiff to prove enrollment No. D/113/1998

written over Ex-D9 against witness No. 2 to be of defendant No. 4

Daulat Ram, Advocate. Thus, there remained no scintilla of plaintiff’s

evidence to prove alleged overt acts of connivance of defendant No. 4

with defendant No. 1 in getting impugned General Power of Attorney

of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 1 fraudulently or

otherwise.

28. Next, as far as documentary evidence Ex-P27 to P37 are

concerned, these remained of no avail to the plaintiff. Ex-P27 simply

remained copy of application of Ram Chander (Plaintiff) to the Public

Information Officer, SDM, HQ Karol Bagh, New Delhi for seeking

information under RTI Act in respect of Sh. SK Tyagi, Sub-Registrar,

Asaf Ali road, New Delhi. Ex-P28 remained copy of letter regarding

supplying of information under RTI Act to the plaintiff as sought for

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

57

vide Ex-P27. Ex-P30 to P36 remained information provided under

RTI Act to the plaintiff as sought vide Ex-P27. Ex-P37 remained copy

of letter for providing information under RTI Act. PW-2 who brought

records before the Court in cross-examination stated that in the

brought records, only photocopies are available of document Ex-P30

to P36. It means, Ex-P30 to P36 remained photocopy of photocopy

and so, secondary evidence which are not admissible in evidence for

want of permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence.

Otherwise also, documents Ex-P30 to P36 have nothing to do with

alleged fraud prayed upon the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 in

connivance with defendant No. 3 & 4 as there remained no allegation

of any connivance or collusion of Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali road, Delhi

with defendants in registration of impugned General Power of

Attorney Ex-P38 & Ex-D9 which Sh. SK Tyagi registered being

Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali road, Delhi. In absence of any claim of

plaintiff regarding alleged involvement of said Sub-Registrar, New

Delhi in registration of impugned General Power of Attorney or in

alleged fraud, documents Ex-P30 to P36 which otherwise remained

unproved as per law of evidence & pertained to mere departmental

inquiry & registration of FIRs against him, pale in to insignificance

qua alleged fraud in present case. Otherwise also, mere factors of

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

58

initiation of departmental enquiry as well as registration of FIR

against the said Sub-Registrar, Delhi in itself are not enough to infer

anything adversely against said Sub-Registrar qua alleged fraud as

neither of said document pertained to matter of registration of

impugned General Power of Attorney. Otherwise also, in present case,

the character of said Sub-Registrar is not in question so as to consider

said documents to be relevant qua matter under determination in

present case. Thus, documentary evidence Ex-P27 to P37 remained of

no avail to the plaintiff to prove his case under the issue.

29. Next, as far as documentary evidence Ex-P39 to P42

original of which brought before the Court by PW-4 are concerned,

these too remained of no help to the plaintiff to prove alleged fraud or

otherwise qua impugned General Power of Attorney to be illegal, null

& void. Rather, these documents pertained to revenue records as well

as Award No. 302 (1977-78) qua acquisition of land and receipt of

compensation for that which are not in dispute in present case.

Further, as far as documents Ex-P46, P47 & P49 which remained

revenue records of rights of suit property are concerned, these too

have nothing to do with alleged fraud in getting impugned General

Power of Attorney or other impugned documents as there remained no

dispute qua said documents in present case. Further, there remained

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

59

no dispute qua document Ex-P50 which remained copy of passport of

plaintiff. Ex-P51 to P62 pertained to matter of criminal complaint

filed by the plaintiff against defendant No. 1 and others which has not

yet been decided finally. So, these documents remained of no avail

qua present civil matter in dispute. Otherwise also, Civil Court is not

bound by proceedings, findings and final decision of the Court in

criminal case. To support my said view, reliance is placed on

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled “Sh.

Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Smt. Daya Sapra, 2009 (13) SCC 729”

wherein it had been held that “The judgment of a criminal court in a

civil proceeding will only have limited application, viz., inter alia, for

the purpose as to who was the accused and what was the result of the

criminal proceedings. Any finding in a criminal proceeding by no

stretch of imagination would be binding in a civil proceeding”.

Similar remained the case with defendants’ evidence Ex-D19 to D25

which also pertained to aforesaid criminal complaint, records of which

brought before the Court by DW-9.

30. Next, as far as opinion report of finger print & handwriting

expert Ex-P43 & P44 duly proved by PW-5 are concerned, these too

remained of not of much help to the plaintiff to prove alleged fraud or

misrepresentation in getting execution & registration of impugned

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

60

General Power of Attorney Ex-P38 & Ex-D9. As already discussed

above, once the plaintiff himself admitted his signatures as well as

thumb impressions over first page of impugned General Power of

Attorney Ex-P38 & Ex-D9 and his version being of alleged misuse of

papers & stamp papers given to brother of defendant No. 2 namely

Dhajja Ram Deswal for getting loan from the Bank, in getting

impugned General Power of Attorney fraudulently executed &

registered, said opinion report pale in to insignificance. Otherwise

also, the opinion report Ex-P43 regarding comparison of admitted

thumb impressions of plaintiff S-1 to S4 with disputed thumb

impressions on back side of original General Power of Attorney (Ex-

D9) TD-1 & TD-2 and TCD-1 & TCD-2 over back side of photocopy

of General Power of Attorney (Ex-P38), shows result & final opinion

regarding thumb impressions TD-1 & TD-2 to be blurred in nature &

so pore examination is not possible whereas TCD-1 & TCD-2 shows

dissimilarities with left thumb specimen (S-1 & S-2) while shows

similarities with right thumb specimen (S-3 & S4), hence belongs to

the same thumb/finger. It means, opinion of finger print expert

regarding thumb impressions over impugned General Power of

Attorney to be of the plaintiff. Otherwise also, said thumb impressions

have been specifically admitted by the plaintiff (PW-10) in his cross-

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

61

examination as already discussed above. If so, said opinion report is

nothing but in line with said admissions of the plaintiff. Admissions

are the best evidence. So, said opinion report is not of any help to the

plaintiff to prove alleged fraud & misrepresentation. Further, the

opinion report Ex-P44 regarding comparison of admitted signatures of

plaintiff A-1 to A6 with disputed signatures on original General

Power of Attorney (Ex-D9) D-1 to D15 and questioned signatures

over photocopy of General Power of Attorney (Ex-P38), shows result

& final opinion regarding observation of dissimilarities and the

similarities in signatures which are significant to reach definite

conclusion. All the described dissimilarities are unique in nature and

beyond the range of natural variation and all the similarities falls

under the range of natural variations, the writing habits between the

signatures leads to conclusion that the writer is different in both

marked as questioned (D-2 to D15) of Set-1, questioned (CD-1 to

CD-15) of Set-2 with the admitted and specimen documents marked

as (S-1 to S-10) and (A-1 to A-6), while it is observed that the writer

is same in signatures marked as questioned (D-1) with the admitted &

specimen. The said opinion partly remained in favour of the plaintiff

and partly against him. It opined signatures of the plaintiff at point

D-1 over impugned General Power of Attorney Ex-D9. The plaintiff

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

62

has also expressly admitted his thumb impression on reverse side of

same page of Ex-D9 in his cross-examination which remained of at

the time of endorsement of Sub-Registrar-III, New Delhi. Last page of

Ex-D9 also finds endorsement & signatures of Sub-Registrar-III, New

Delhi. All pages of Ex-D9 finds stamp of office of Sub-Registrar-III,

New Delhi. If so, mere opinion regarding other signatures over Ex-D9

to be in variance with admitted signatures of the plaintiff and so, not

of him pale in to insignificance. Rather, in absence of any allegation

of forgery of signatures of the plaintiff, other signatures on document

Ex-D9 also presumed to be of the plaintiff himself. It remained

consistent version of the plaintiff that his blank signed papers & stamp

papers have been misused by defendant No. 1 in collusion with

defendant No. 3 & 4 in preparation of impugned General Power of

Attorney and so means, implied admission of his signatures on Ex-D9.

Other wise also, said opinion partly remained based upon signatures

on photocopy of impugned General Power of Attorney ExP38. It is

well settled principles of law that signatures can not be compared with

photocopy of the document for opinion. The standard thumb

impressions or disputed thumb impressions /signatures have to be

taken from the original document and comparison of such thumb

impression/signatures from photocopies would not be a valid

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

63

examination. On this aspect, reliance is placed on judgment of

Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in “Balbir Singh v. Bhim

Singh, 2015 (5) Law Herald 4643” & “Jatinder Singh v. Satinder

Singh, 2018 (4) Law Herald 3223”. Further, there remained contrary

opinion report of handwriting & finger print expert Ex-D10/1 proved

by DW-10 regarding opinion about disputed signatures D/1 to D30

(Over Ex-D9) to have been written by the writer of specimen &

admitted signatures viz the disputed, specimen & admitted signatures

have been written by one and the same person ie. by Ram Chander

(Plaintiff). As far as opinion regarding thumb impressions, opinion

remained same as in report of PW-5. Further, expert opinion remains

the very weak kind of evidence which can not have precedence over

direct evidence. In present case, the plaintiff himself has admitted his

thumb marks over impugned General Power of Attorney as well as his

signatures partly and so, under such factual matrix, both opinion

reports remained not of much help to the plaintiff to prove alleged

fraud & misrepresentation. Otherwise also, it remains the general

prevalent practice of private expert to render report in favour of party

who engaged him and so much credence cannot be given to private

expert opinion report and so the case with opinion reports of both

parties.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

64

31. To the contrary, DW-3 Ramdhari, the defendant No. 1 in his

affidavit of evidence Ex-DW3/A has deposed on the factum of valid

execution of impugned General Power of Attorney Ex-D9 by the

plaintiff in his favour in presence of attesting witnessing and its

registration by retreating version of written statement. Nothing

material revealed in his cross-examination on material aspect of

execution & getting registration of impugned General Power of

Attorney Ex-D9 by the plaintiff in his favour. The plaintiff tried to

reveal facts qua not knowing of the plaintiff by putting different

questions in his examination but of no avail. Rather, DW-3 stated

about knowing the plaintiff since 1998 after meeting at the Glass shop

of the plaintiff at Rohtak and usual meetings with plaintiff while his

going to his village till year 2001. Though he stated about not

knowing any other person from family of plaintiff but expressly stated

about meeting son of the plaintiff in year 2004 while giving of money

of Rs. 5,67,500/-. Though he stated that he does not know as how

many photographs were taken on 24-09-2001 that is at the time of

execution & registration of impugned General Power of Attorney Ex-

D9 but mere such factor is not sufficient to term the same to be illegal,

null & void. Thus, nothing material revealed in his cross-examination

so as to disbelieve his version. Besides, DW-2 Dhajja Ram in his

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

65

affidavit of evidence Ex-DW2/A deposed on the factum of getting

glass fitted of his house from plaintiff in year 2001, being employed

as Assistant Manager at Central Bank of India & retired therefrom on

30-06-2001 as per retirement certificate Ex-D16, never running of any

committee, not advising the plaintiff for taking loan, non handing over

of blank documents, blank stamp papers, photo, & ID proof to him by

the plaintiff as well non playing of any fraud upon the plaintiff.

Rather, on account of loss in his business, the plaintiff had given his

power of attorney to Ramdhari. Nothing material revealed in cross-

examination of this witness except the fact of knowing the plaintiff on

account of purchase of glasses from the shop of plaintiff and so usual

coming of plaintiff to his home as well as requirement of copy of

Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari, Affidavit, Photo & filling up of bank

documents for obtaining agricultural loan from the Bank. Be it so, but

the witness being Assistant Bank Manager is expected to know all

these requirements of obtaining loan from the Bank but from said

facts, nothing can be simply inferred regarding delivery of such kinds

of documents by the plaintiff to this witness and further handing over

of same to the defendant No. 1 by him. The plaintiff claimed to have

delivered blank signed papers & stamp papers to this witness in

September, 2001 for obtaining bank loan but as per Ex-D16 & D17,

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

66

this witness retired from service of the Bank on 30-06-2001. If so,

question of getting alleged documents from the plaintiff in September,

2001 for getting loan for the plaintiff became quite improbable on his

part. Thus, version of the plaintiff on the aspect of handing over of

blank signed paper & blank signed stamp papers to this witness in

September 2001 for obtaining loan became highly doubtful.

32. Further, DW-6 proved the factum of impugned General

Power of Attorney Ex-D9 to be registered instrument as per records of

Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali road, Delhi brought before the Court. Though,

learned counsel for the plaintiff in his cross-examination put many

questions to dispute brought records but of no avail. Rather, this

witness in his cross-examination re-affirmed copy of Ex-D9 to be in

his records. Certainly, question of retaining of original document by

registration officer is not the requirement of law. Otherwise also, this

witness remained of records & not of personal knowledge and so,

whatever answer he gave to questions put to him in his cross-

examination, the same have no adverse effect on the records brought

before the Court. The fact remained the fact that he brought records of

registration office as per that Ex-D9 remained the registered

instrument copy of which finds place in office records of the Sub-

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

67

Registrar, Asaf Ali road, Delhi. Thus, this witness proved the

document Ex-D9 to be registered instrument as per records.

33. Further, DW-7 proved the fact of registration of impugned

General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 14-09-2001 Ex-D9

being Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali road, Delhi at that time. He has

specifically stated on the factum of reading over and making to

understand contents of the document to executant Ram Chander, GPA

holder Ram Dhari, witness RK Tyagi & Abhinav Gupta in simple

Hindi and affixation of respective signatures & thumb marks thereon

having admitted the same to be correct in his presence. Though he

stated about affixing of thumb impressions by Ram Chander in his

presence but Ex-D9 also finds signatures of Ram Chander thereon but

to my mind, this factor is not of such an extent to raise doubt

regarding execution & registration of the document Ex-D9. Rather,

thumb impressions have more authenticity than the signatures of a

person. Learned counsel for the plaintiff confined majority of his

cross-examination on the point of registration of criminal cases/FIRs

against this witness but no cogent evidence of ever conviction of the

witness. Mere factor of registration of an FIR can not be considered

proof of alleged offences against him. Rather, unless alleged offences

proved & person convicted by competent Court, he is presumed to be

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

68

innocent. So, said factor in itself can not be considered to be affecting

adversely upon credibility of the witness, especially where neither of

criminal case/FIR to be qua registration of impugned General Power

of Attorney Ex-D9. Though, this witness in cross-examination stated

that he has seen document Ex-P38 regarding that in original records at

point ‘A’, there is original photo whereas at point ‘B’ photocopy. He

further stated that on original record at point ‘A’ & ‘B’ his signatures

are not there. On summoned records at reverse side of page No. 1, his

signatures are not there at point ‘C’ & ‘D’ but he self qualified by

explaining that last page bears his stamp & signatures and on

remaining pages, his signatures are not required on copy to be retained

in the office. He further stated that on summoned record of Ex-P38

page No. 1 to 4 does not bear stamp & signatures of Sub-Registrar as

well as thumb impression of any person on said pages. He further

admitted fact of non mention of name, address & seal of witness at

point ‘A’ of the GPA to be correct. He further stated to have not

placed on records IDs of executant & witness but qualified by stating

to have seen & returned. From these facts revealed in cross-

examination of this witness, nothing specific came in evidence so as

to disbelieve the factum of execution & registration of impugned

General Power of Attorney Ex-D9. Rather, said facts remained mere

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

69

minor kinds of irregularities of the office of Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali

road, Delhi. It is enough that copy of General Power of Attorney Ex-

D9 kept in records of Sub-Registrar office remained the copy of

original Ex-D9. Further, once summoned records of office of Sub-

Registrar remained copy of Ex-D9, the factor of bearing original

photographs or photocopy of photograph but same as of original does

not make much difference. It is not the case of the plaintiff that copy

of original General Power of Attorney [Ex-D9] in records of Sub-

Registrar, Delhi is not same in its contents. If so, said factors revealed

in cross-examination of DW-7 pale in to insignificance. Thus, nothing

material revealed in cross-examination of DW-7 so as to disbelieve

him on the aspect of registration of impugned General Power of

Attorney Ex-D9 as per law.

34. Further, though defendants have also examined one of

attesting witness of impugned General Power of Attorney Ex-D9 as

PW-8 Abhinay Gupta, Advocate but instead of supporting the case of

defendants, he some how demolished their case. Though this witness

in his examination in chief identified & admitted his signatures at

point ‘Q’ over General Power of Attorney Ex-D9 but his enrollment

No. written therein to be wrong as his enrollment No. remained

D/937-R/1997. He also stated about another witness of Ex-D9 to be

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

70

his colleague Sh. RK Tyagi, Advocate. However, he stated that

Ramdhari brought the document to him & upon asking by Ramdhari,

he signed over the same on friendly basis whereas signatures of others

were already affixed. He further stated that his signatures qua

registration were not done at the time of registration. He does not

remember whether he appeared before the Sub-Registrar or not. In his

cross-examination specifically stated that neither Ex-D9 was prepared

in his presence nor Ram Chander came in his presence nor Ram

Chander signed in his presence. He further stated that another witness

RK Tyagi did not sign in his presence. On 24-09-2001 he neither saw

Ram Chander nor Ram Chander met him. He does not know as who

wrote his enrollment No. D/113/98 & why the same were written.

Admittedly, no one apprised him of contents of Ex-D9. These facts if

taken together, then it is clear that the plaintiff did not sign or thumb

marked Ex-D9 in presence & witnessing of this witness but at the

same time version of this witness regarding simply signing over Ex-

D9 as witness on friendly basis too does not transpire confidence of

the Court. He remained an Advocate and so expected to know as what

he is signing. He being literate law professional is presumed to have

signed over Ex-D9 after having read & under stand contents of the

same in terms of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act for want of

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

71

any plea or proof of force or coercion on his part. On this aspect,

Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in “Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr.

vs. Agarwal Steel, 2009 (4) CCC 598” relied upon wherein it had

been held so. Moreover, even if version of this witness is accepted in

totality, then also to my mind, it has no adverse effect on valid

execution & registration of impugned General Power of Attorney

Ex-D9 as per law. There is no legal requirement for mandatory

attestation of General Power of Attorney by any witness in terms of

relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as well as the

Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. Thus, even if the impugned General

Power of Attorney was not executed & registered in presence &

witnessing of PW-8, its remained immaterial qua valid execution &

registration of the same for want of mandatory requirement of

attesting witness. Otherwise also, once the plaintiff himself admitted

his signatures as well as his thumb impressions as well as the fact of

purchase of stamp paper of impugned General Power of Attorney

ExD9 as already discussed above, to my mind, he impliedly admitted

execution of Ex-D9 and so, in such eventuality, there remained no

requirement to get the document proved by examination of attesting

witness. To support said view, reliance is placed on judgment of

Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in “Bharat Bhushan &

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

72

others’ case (Supra)” cited by learned counsel for defendants wherein

it had been held that once signatures have been proved, the documents

are deemed to have been proved & can not be thrown out for want of

proving of the same through attesting witnesses. Thus, evidence of

PW-8 in no manner strengthened the case of the plaintiff.

35. The aforesaid discussion & reasons lead the Court to

conclusion that the plaintiff failed to substantiate first ground of

challenge to the impugned General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4

dated 24-09-2001 Ex-P39 & Ex-D9 so as to prove the same to be

result of alleged fraud & misrepresentation. Rather, in afore discussed

appreciation of evidence, it remained legal, valid & duly registered as

per law of registration. The plaintiff even failed to rebut by cogent

evidence the legal presumption of valid execution, correctness and

registration as per law attached with the registered instrument Ex-D9.

36. Next, the second ground of challenge pertains to impugned

Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 Ex-PX & Ex-D7 & its

Mutation No. 6647 dated 08-09-2007 Ex-P48 & Ex-D11 to be illegal,

null & void. This ground of challenge remained based on core ground

of being based upon illegal, null & void impugned General Power of

Attorney Ex-P38 & Ex-D9. As already discussed above, the plaintiff

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

73

failed to prove impugned General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff in

favour of defendant No. 1 Ex-P38 & Ex-D9 to be illegal, null & void

and so, the same is presumed to be legal & valid by virtue of it being

registered instrument. If so, the defendant No. 1 being legal & valid

General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff, had every right to

execute the impugned Sale Deed Ex-PX & Ex-D7 qua suit property

on behalf of principal/master/donor the plaintiff in favour of the

defendant No. 2. The grant of exercise of power of the

principal/master/donor the plaintiff to the agent defendant No. 1 to

sell the suit property is quite evident from contents of the General

Power of Attorney Ex-D9. If so, defendant No. 1 remained competent

enough to execute the impugned Sale Deed Ex-PX & Ex-D7 of suit

property in favour of the defendant No. 2 in the capacity of General

Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff. Such transaction of sale by

power of attorney holder can not be simply termed to be illegal, null

& void in terms of Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882.

Further, it is not the case of the plaintiff that his General Power of

Attorney did not pay him the sale consideration. Otherwise also, a

person who gave the power of attorney can not challenge the sale on

ground that the sale was without consideration if effected based upon

valid power of attorney. On this aspect, reliance is placed on judgment

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

74

of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in “Maya’s case (Supra)”

cited by learned counsel for defendants. Further, impugned Mutation

Ex-P48 & Ex-D11 of impugned Sale Deed remained based upon & in

conformity with the impugned sale deed, it too can not be termed to

be illegal, null & void, being based upon legal & valid sale deed. Thus

Court finds no legal substance in the said ground of challenge to

impugned Sale Deed Ex-PX & Ex-D7 as well as impugned Mutation

Ex-P48 & Ex-D11. Further, once said documents remained legal &

valid, subsequent revenue records of rights based upon same too

remained legal & valid.

37. To the contrary, the defendant No. 2 as DW-1 in his

affidavit of evidence has retreated the version of written statement by

deposing on the factum of purchase of suit property vide impugned

Sale Deed from the plaintiff through his valid power of attorney

holder the defendant No. 1 for sale consideration of Rs. 5,67,500/-.

Nothing material revealed in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve

his version on said aspects. Besides, DW-2 proved the factum of

scribing of impugned Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 Ex-PX &

Ex-D7. DW-3 stated on the factum of execution of impugned Sale

Deed in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the plaintiff in

favour of the defendant No. 2 of the suit property and receipt of sale

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

75

consideration amount of Rs. 5,67,500/-. DW-5 proved certified copies

of said sale deed Ex-D7 to be correct as per records. Nothing material

revealed in cross-examination of said witnesses so as to disbelieve

them on the aspect of execution of impugned sale deed. In presence of

existence of valid General Power of Attorney of the plaintiff in favour

of the defendant No. 1, legal presumption attached with the impugned

sale deed being registered instrument qua valid execution &

registration as per law also remained unrebutted on the part of the

plaintiff. If so, impugned Sale Deed & its Mutation are presumed to

be legal & valid.

38. Next, as far as third ground of challenge to impugned

General Power of Attorney as well as Sale Deed regarding same being

paper transaction without delivery of possession of the suit property to

the vendee of the sale deed is concerned, Court finds no legal

substance in it. The impugned General Power of Attorney in itself did

not creat any right in favour of either party qua the suit property.

Rather, it simply gave powers of the donor/principal/master plaintiff

to donee/agent to execute Sale Deed on behalf of the plaintiff qua suit

property to any one. So, question of it being paper transaction or

otherwise has no effect on its validity. The defendant No. 1 based

upon impugned General Power of Attorney executed the impugned

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

76

Sale Deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and so, acted upon the same.

Thus, it did not remain mere paper document/transaction. As far as

non delivery of possession to the vendee of the impugned sale deed,

its bare perusal shows delivery of possession over the sold out land to

the vendee defendant No. 2. As far as actual possession of plaintiff

over the suit property is concerned, no cogent evidence except bald

general version of PW-6, 7 & 10 which run counter to concerned

revenue records of rights of the suit property the Mutation No. 6647

dated 08-09-2007 Ex-P48 & Ex-D11, Jamabandi (2007-08) Ex-D13

& Jamabandi (2012-13) Ex-D14 of the suit property which show

ownership & possession over the suit property to be of Baljeet Singh

(Defendant No. 2). There remains legal presumption of correctness of

revenue records of rights which is rebuttable by cogent & convincing

evidence only. In present case, except bald general self serving

statement of the plaintiff (PW10) as well as his witnesses PW-6 & 7,

no cogent evidence to show actual possession of the plaintiff over the

suit property. The best evidence remained of Khasra Girdawari entries

qua suit property to show actual cultivating possession of the plaintiff

as claimed but no such records brought before the Court in plaintiff’s

evidence. As far as Jamabandi (2002-03) of the suit property Ex-P46

showing ownership & possession of the plaintiff is concerned, it

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

77

remained of prior period than the date of impugned Sale Deed No.

1398 dated 28-04-2005 Ex-PX & Ex-D7 & its Mutation No. 6647

dated 08-09-2007 Ex-P48 & Ex-D11 and so, of no avail. No other

evidence to prove possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.

Thus, Court finds no legal force & substance in said ground of

challenge to impugned General Power of Attorney, Sale Deed as well

as it Mutation. No other grounds to challenge impugned documents.

39. Next, it is well settled position of law on the aspect of

burden of proof that the plaintiff must succeed or fail on his own case.

He/she can not take advantage of weakness in the defendant’s case to

get decree. In support of said view, reference is made to judicial

precedence of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Punjab Urban Planning

and Development Authority vs. M/s Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Re-

Rolling Mills, 1998 (3) LJR 106”. If so, despite of any kind of

weakness of lacuna in the case/evidence of defendants to prove their

version/case, the plaintiff can not take advantage of same to get decree

in his favour. Rather, the plaintiff must prove his case at own which he

could not able to do so.

40. Nextly comes addressing of legal arguments of learned

counsel for parties on the issue under determination. Learned counsel

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

78

for the plaintiff argued that the defendant No. 1 is neither known to

the plaintiff nor belongs to his family and so, question of execution of

impugned General Power of Attorney in his favour qua suit property

does not arise at all. He further argued that General Power of Attorney

qua immovable property can only be executed in favour of his spouse,

son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage affairs or to

execute a deed of conveyance & not in favour of any person. In

support of said contention, he relied upon judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in “Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd’ case (Supra)”.

To the contrary, learned counsel for defendants argued that the cited

case law is not applicable to factual matrix of the present case and so

distinguishable. He further argued that Hon’ble Apex Court in said

judgment no where held that power of attorney can only be executed

in favour of relatives and not in favor of other person. Rather, Hon’ble

Apex Court has used the word may instead of shall while holding

validity of power of attorney, thereby leaving scope open for

execution of power of attorney in favour of other persons too.

41. Upon hearing aforesaid rival contentions of learned counsel

for parties and having gone through the cited case law, the Court is of

the view that the cited case law remained distinguishable on factual

matrix of the case. However, there remains no room for any doubt in

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

79

mind of any one regarding mandate of said case law. In cited case, the

matter for consideration & determination before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court remained of legality & validity of transfer or conveyance of

immovable property through a General Power of Attorney, agreement

to sell or Will and not the matter of any legal limitation on execution

of General Power of Attorney in favour of only relatives like spouse,

son, daughter, brother, sister or relatives. In present case no question

under determination qua sale of property through General Power of

Attorney but by way of impugned Sale Deed by General Power of

Attorney Holder. Therefore, to my judicial mind, the cited case law is

not applicable to factual matrix of present case and in turn, of no avail

to the plaintiff.

42. Resultant to aforesaid discussion & reasons, the Court

reached to conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case

under the issue so as to entitle him to declaration as sought & prayed

for. Therefore, the plaintiff is held not entitle to the declaration as

sought & prayed for under the issue. Accordingly, this issue is

decided against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 2 & 3

43. The onus to prove these issues remained on the plaintiff.

Both issues are taken up jointly being interconnected to each other.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

80

The issue No. 2 involved the question of entitlement of the plaintiff to

permanent injunction as prayed for whereas the issue No. 2 involved

the question of entitlement of the plaintiff to mandatory injunction as

prayed for. The plaintiff has sought permanent injunction against

defendant No. 1 & 2 seeking their restrainment from interference in to

possession of plaintiff on, his dispossession from, changing nature of,

creation of charge over, mortgage and alienation of the suit property.

He has further sought mandatory injunction to defendant No. 2 to

restore the suit property to its original position in case of

dispossession of plaintiff from, changing nature of and alienation of

the suit property by the defendant No. 2 during pendency of suit. The

sought relief under both these issues remained consequential relief to

the core/basic relief of sought declaration. If so, impliedly, these

issues remained dependent upon affirmative findings in favour of the

plaintiff on issue No. 1 above which returned in negative as discussed

above. If so, once the plaintiff is held not entitle to basic core relief of

declaration, question of grant of consequential relief of injunction as

prayed for & under determination under these issues, does not arise at

all. Otherwise also, once the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership as

well as possession over the suit property as discussed above under

issue No. 1, question of his entitlement to sought permanent

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

81

injunction against defendants does not arise at all. Further, no scintilla

of evidence of plaintiff regarding any change in status over the suit

property during pendency of the suit so as to entitle the plaintiff to

sought mandatory injunction. Therefore, in terms of findings on issue

No. 1 above, the plaintiff is held not entitle to permanent and

mandatory injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, both these issues are

decided against the plaintiff.

Issue No. 4

44. The onus to prove the issue remained on defendants. It

involved the question of non maintainability of the suit in present

form. Upon it, learned counsel for defendants argued that the suit is

not maintainable being barred by law of limitation. He argued that as

per para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff had knowledge of impugned

instruments on 22-02-2006 and his son filed a Civil Suit qua that

matter but subsequently dismissed as withdrawn on 23-01-2009 as per

para 13 of the plaint. Thus, present suit is much beyonds the

prescribed period of limitation of three years as per Article 58 or 59 of

the Limitation Act, 1963. To the contrary, no meaningful argument

advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff except to submit in

general terms that the suit is well within limitation period and so,

maintainable in present form.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

82

45. Upon hearing aforesaid rival contentions of both parties, the

Court is of view that the suit is barred by law of limitation & in turn

non maintainable. The plaintiff has sought declaration of his

ownership in possession over the suit property & impugned General

Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 14-09-2001, Sale Deed No. 1398

dated 28-05-2004, its Mutation No. 6647 dated 08-09-2007 &

subsequent revenue records based upon the same to be illegal, null &

void, non-est & not binding upon his rights. As per para 6 of the

plaint, son of the plaintiff namely Sunil Lohcab came to know about

impugned Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-05-2004 and its Mutation No,

6647 dated 08-09-2007. Son of the plaintiff also filed civil suit qua

said matter but withdrawn on 23-01-2009 as per para 13 of the plaint.

The plaintiff in entire plaint no where averred specifically as on which

date he had knowledge of impugned instruments. Impugned General

Power of Attorney and Sale Deed remained registered instrument

which is notice to general public as whole and so, notice to the

plaintiff, no matter he returned to India in year April, 2010. If so, in

absence of stating any particular date of having express knowledge of

said instruments, the plaintiff is presumed to be having knowledge of

same on the day of registration of said impugned instruments that is of

General Power of Attorney on 24-09-2001 and of Sale Deed on 28-

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

83

05-2004. The plaintiff though averred at para 10 of the the plaint that

now on the basis of impugned Sale Deed & its mutation, the

defendant No. 2 started asserting his title & rights over the suit

property but failed to state any date of such overt acts. It is another

matter that he averred at para 11 of the plaint that defendant No. 1 & 2

finally refused to his request on 29-11-2012. If so, nothing specific in

plaint as well as in testimony of plaintiff as PW-10 as on which

particular date he had knowledge of impugned instruments/documents

and when right to sue defendants first accrued to him or when facts

entitling him to have impugned instrument cancelled or set arise first

became known to him. If so, under such factual matrix of the case, the

knowledge as well as accrual of right of the plaintiff to sue defendants

qua impugned General Power of Attorney No. 3639/4 dated 24-09-

2001 Ex-P38 & Ex-D9 and impugned Sale Deed No. 1398 dated 28-

05-2004 Ex-PX & Ex-D7 are presumed to be on 14-09-2001 & 28-05-

2004 respectively that is from date of registration of instruments

themselves. Present suit has been filed on 30-11-2012 as evident from

case records. If so, co-relation of said dates of impugned instruments

with said date of institution of present suit clearly shows the suit being

barred by law of limitation in terms of Article 58 or 59 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 as per that prescribed period of limitation

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
 Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari & others

84

remained of three years from date when right to sue first accrues or

facts entitling the plaintiff to have instruments cancelled or set aside

first became known to him. If so, the present suit is not maintainable

being barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, this issue is decided in

favour of defendants.

Conclusion

Issue No. 5 (Relief)

46. As a sequel to findings on aforesaid issues, the suit of

plaintiff against defendants failed and so, dismissed with costs.

Consequently, the plaintiff is held not entitle to relief of declaration,

permanent and mandatory injunction as sought & prayed for.

Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to records room

after due compliance.

Announced in open Court.

Note: This judgment contains eight four pages and each page has been
checked and signed by me.

(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420
Digitally signed
by SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT OJHA
OJHA Date:
2023.08.17
18:11:42 +0530
(Dharampal)
Civil Judge (JD)
Shrikant Ojha Bahadurgarh
Stenographer II 16-08-2023 UID No. HR-0420