PRITAM KAUR Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2002 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 14.08.1997 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e. legal representatives of deceased Gurmukh Singh seeking possession of quarter No. B-34, double storey, Motia Khan, Delhi had been dismissed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that their successor Gurmukh Singh had purchased quarters No. B-33 and B-34, Block B, Motia Khan, Delhi vide sale deed of November, 1975. Sardari Lal the father of the defendants had deceitfully got signatures of Gurmukh Singh appended on blank papers; Gurmukh Singh had always treated Sardari Lal as a tenant and in fact an eviction petition had also been filed against him. No agreement dated 22.09.1959 was ever executed between the parties; in para 10 it has been averred that the plaintiff is an illiterate man and he had put his signatures on blank papers at the instance of Sardari Lal; this document was deceitfully converted into an agreement to sell which in fact was not executed between the parties.

(3.) TRAIL Judge on the basis of oral and documentary evidence had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff is not entitled for possession as vide aforenoted agreement to sell Ex. PW-1/1 he had agreed to sell the suit property to the defendant and thereafter receipts of payment i.e. Ex. DW-1/2 to Ex. DW-1/7 had evidenced this fact; protection under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act was available in favour of the defendant; he could not be evicted. The Trial Judge in para 21 of the judgment had noted the submission of the plaintiff that the signatures of Gurmukh Singh were obtained on blank papers and it had returned a finding that the signatures of Gurmukh Singh were never disputed; the plaintiff has failed to prove that these signatures were obtained on blank papers. That apart the receipts executed by the plaintiff Ex. DW-1/2 to Ex. DW-1/7 had also been adverted to dismiss the claim of the plaintiff. This finding was returned while disposing of issues No. 5 to 7 which were disposed of by a common discussion.