MADAN LAL AGGARWAL Vs. RAKESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present suit has been filed by the plaintiff to seek decree of declaration against the defendants declaring cancellation of sale deed dated 9.5.2008 and for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest on the basis of the said sale deed qua the suit property.

(2.) THE facts in brief which necessitated the filing of the present suit are that the plaintiff has claimed himself to be a bona fide, lawful and absolute owner of the agricultural land measuring 4 Bighas 1 Biswas out of Khasra No. 150 situated in Revenue Estate of Village Bhalswa Jahangirpuri, Delhi vide registered sale deed dated 2.2.98 registered as Documents No. 57 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 518. The plaintiff has also claimed to be in possession of the said land and also in possession of the entire chain of documents tracing his title to the said suit property. The plaintiff has further averred that the defendant no.1 is alleged to have purchased the said property from the defendant no.2 who impersonated himself to be the plaintiff and owner of the said property. The plaintiff has further averred that in the month of August 2009, when the plaintiff visited the suit property it came to his knowledge that some persons are attempting to grab the suit property and apprehending danger to his suit property, the plaintiff had approached the revenue authority and on perusal of the record of the revenue authority the plaintiff was shocked to find that the revenue records were reflecting the name of the defendant no.1 as purchaser of the said property. On making further enquiries the plaintiff found that the defendant no.2 had impersonated himself as plaintiff to execute the said sale deed dated 9.5.2008 registered as document no. 7530 in additional book No. 1 Volume No. 1854 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.44,72,000/ - in favour of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff made a written complaint to the police station Swaroop Nagar and based on that an FIR No. 224 dated 1.10.2009 under Section 419/420, 468, 471,474,34 120(b) was registered against the defendants and the same is pending investigation.

(3.) THE defendant no.2 was served through publication as well as by means of affixation and vide order dated 10.8.2011, the defendant no.2 was proceeded ex -parte as the defendant no.2 did not come forward to contest the present case. The ex -parte evidence as against the defendant no.2 was adduced by the plaintiff Madan Lal Aggarwal as PW -1. In ex -parte evidence the said witness proved photo copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.2008 as Ex.PW1/2 and photo copy of the FIR No. 224/2009 as Ex.PW1/3. Besides proving the said documents, the plaintiff also proved the case set up by him in the plaint. The testimony of the plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted, there is thus no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the plaintiff through which he has successfully proved his case. The ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is not in dispute as the defendant no.1 has also admitted the ownership of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 has further admitted the fact that the defendant no.2 had impersonated himself as plaintiff and then had executed the sale deed in question dated 9.5.2008 in favour of the defendant no.1. Once the said property could not be sold by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant no.1, therefore, no right or interest in the said property could be transferred in favour of the defendant no.1 through the said sale deed dated 9.5.2008. The defendant no.1 has also taken a stand that the said property was sold by the defendant no.2 not on his own but by impersonating the plaintiff with dishonest and oblique motives to earn illegal money out of such sham sale transaction. Thus the said sale deed dated 9.5.2008 registered in the office of Sub - Registrar is a creation of illegal and fraudulent transaction and therefore the same deserves to be set aside and the same is accordingly declared as null and void. The decree of cancellation is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2 thereby cancelling the sale deed dated 9.5.2008. The decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2, his representatives, assignees, attorneys or any other person acting on his behalf are restrained from selling, alienating, transferring, assigning or creating any third party interest in the said property. The suit filed by the plaintiff is accordingly decreed with costs qua defendant no.2.