RAJWANTI Vs. KISHAN CHAND SHEHRAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit has been filed for (i) declaration of the consent decree and order dated 7th December, 2004 decreeing the suit in terms thereof, of the court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi as null and void, and for (ii) declaring the agreement to sell and other agreements/rectifications/power of attorney, all with respect to the property, subject matter of the consent decree and in pursuance thereto, as null and void, and for (iii) possession of the property subject matter of the compromise decree, and for (iv) permanent injunction etc. against the defendants.

(2.) THE suit came up first on 18th May, 2009 when doubt was expressed by this Court as to the maintainability of the suit owing to the provisions of Section 47, Order 23 Rule 3A of the CPC as well as on the aspect of limitation. On the request of the senior counsel for the plaintiff the matter was posted for today.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs shorn of details is that the plaintiff No. 1 was allotted plot No.85, Block D, admeasuring 350 sq. meters at Rangpuri by the DDA in lieu of her acquired lands; that the plaintiff No. 1 and her daughter plaintiff No. 2 owned other lands also which were subject matter of acquisition proceedings; that the defendant No. 1 is the son of the brother of the husband of the plaintiff No. 1; that the plaintiff No. 1 trusted the defendant No. 1 blindly; that the defendant No. 1 took the responsibility of pursuing the land acquisition compensation case and allotment of alternate plots to the plaintiff No. 1; that in the month of March, 2003 the defendant No. 1 took the plaintiff No. 1 to the residence of his daughter and son -in -law impleaded as defendants No. 2 & 3 respectively; that the defendant No. 3 is a judicial officer in Delhi; on that date thumb impression of the plaintiff No. 1 was obtained on a number of blank as well as written papers; that the plaintiff No. 2 was also brought along with her identity card and the both the plaintiffs were thereafter taken to the Sub Registrar office at Kapashera; that both the plaintiffs were made to put their thumb impressions on certain papers at Kapashera and their photographs were also taken; that the plaintiffs were misled by the defendants No. 1 to 3 into believing that the whole exercise was being done for receiving compensation claim for the acquired lands of the plaintiffs; the defendants No. 1 to 3 also deposited Rs. 2 lacs in the account of the plaintiff No. 1; that the plaintiff No. 1 subsequently learnt that she had been duped by the defendants No. 1 to 3 by getting a GPA and Will executed fraudulently in favour of the defendant No. 2 to usurp the plot aforesaid allotted to the plaintiff No. 1 at Rangpuri; when the plaintiff No. 1 confronted the defendant No. 1 he stated that he had purchased the said plot of the plaintiff No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 20 lacs and out of which Rs. 2 lacs had been deposited in the account of the plaintiff No. 1; that the plaintiffs took immediate steps for revocation of the Will and the General Power of Attorney and also served a notice of revocation dated 29th September, 2004 and also made a complaint/representation dated 24th September, 2004 to the Lt. Governor of Delhi and Commissioner of Police, Delhi; that the defendants No. 1 to 3 on coming to know of revocation threatened the plaintiff No. 1 and in pursuance to the said threats, on the blank papers got signed from the plaintiff No. 1 fabricated an agreement to sell dated 28th May, 2003 of the aforesaid plot of land by the plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 4 who is stated to be an accomplice of the defendants No. 1 to 3; that the said agreement to sell is also for a consideration of Rs. 20 lacs out of which Rs. 5 lacs were purported to be given in cash as earnest money; that besides the said agreement, another agreement to sell dated 31st March, 2003 in favour of the defendant No. 1 was similarly fabricated; the defendant No. 5 is stated to be an attesting witness to the forged documents and another accomplice of the defendants No. 1 to 3; that the defendant No. 4 filed a false complaint dated 2nd September, 2004 against the plaintiff No. 1; that the plaintiff No. 1 and her relatives were also implicated in another false case before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, with the connivance of the defendant No. 3 being a judicial officer; that the plaintiff No. 1 made a complaint dated 5th October, 2004 of the aforesaid acts to the police authorities; yet another FIR was filed against the plaintiff No. 1 by the defendant No. 1; that the plaintiffs filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 1302/2004 before this Court inter alia for quashing all the FIRs against the plaintiff No. 1 and for registering FIR against the defendants; that during the pendency of the said writ petition the defendants No. 1 to 3 approached the plaintiff No. 1 for settlement with the promise to withdraw all the FIRs if the plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 give a statement in the Court with regard to the plot at Rangpuri in favour of the defendants in a suit filed by the defendants; that the plaintiffs under coercion signed several papers as asked by the defendants and also went to Tis Hazari Court and made statement to the satisfaction of the defendants in the suit filed by the defendants qua the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on the statement being made by them that suit was decreed pursuant to the alleged compromise recorded in the suit. The plaintiffs however claim that they could not come to know the Court in which their statements were recorded.