RADHEY SHYAM Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Decree Holder had sought execution of a decree of possession of the suit property i.e. WZ No.535, Sri Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi, which was granted to him by judgment dated 22.09.2009 but the objections of the respondents were subsequently allowed by an order dated 03.11.2017 and they were ordered to be put back in possession of the same. This subsequent order has been impugned on the ground that the respondents' predecessor-in-interest-Mr. Jaswant Singh, through whom they have claimed the property, had ample opportunity to contest the same. He chose not to do so. The respondents, however, have claimed to be the bona fide purchaser of the suit property, without notice and that it has been so held by the impugned order.

(2.) It is the appellant's case that Mr. Rampat, the owner of the suit property, had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Ram Kumar, who by a document of transfer dated 26.08.1991 had transferred the property in favour of the appellant. Mr. Ram Kumar is the father-in-law of the appellant. He had proven his case before the Trial Court. Hence, the decree of possession was granted. During the course of the trial of the suit, Mr. Jaswant Singh in his Written Statement had stated that the property had been purchased by him by way of a Sale Deed dated 20.08.1991 registered on 15.10.1991. However, the appellant-plaintiff had set up a case that their document of transfer, although executed six days later on 26.08.1991 was registered on the same date i.e. 15.10.1991. Therefore, their document of transfer being registered earlier, and validly so, would empower them with all right, title and interest in the property, hence their claim should have been and was allowed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Mr. Jaswant Singh did not prove his document of transfer; he did not lead evidence that his document had been registered; it was only an averment in the Written Statement; the bald averment not supported by any evidence would be of no evidentiary value and would, therefore, have to be disregarded. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that that would not be the correct position in law, because the suit must stand on its own legs i.e. the appellant should prove that the document of transfer on which they have based their case was on the basis of the abiding power in the Attorney to have effected the purported transfer in favour of the appellant. In their objection before the First Appellate Court, the respondents had claimed that Mr. Rampat, the owner of the suit property had, prior to the execution of the document dated 26.08.1991, revoked the Power of Attorney; had sent a legal notice to Mr. Ram Kumar, therefore, Mr. Ram Kumar was divested of all such rights apropos the suit property. In effect, the document of transfer dated 26.08.1991 was executed by a person who had no right, title or interest or authority in the same, therefore, and of no consequence in law, it would be a dead document.