Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1694 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. Shashi

2015-09-21

VINEET KOTHARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. The defendant-Om Prakash has filed the present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the plaintiffs/decree-holders Smt. Shashi w/o Late Shri Narendra Kumar and her son Shailendra, aggrieved by the decree of possession dated 13.12.1999 in Civil Original Suit No.120/89 – Smt.Shashi & Anr. Vs. Om Prakash passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur, in respect of plot No.27 – its western side portion measuring 60 x 45 feet situated at Bheru Vilas, near Sardar Club, Jodhpur. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for possession on the ground that the plot No.27 measuring 90 x 60 feet was purchased by Late Shri Narendra Kumar, the husband of the plaintiff-Smt. Shashi, and his brother Lakhpatraj through their father Pukhraj alongwith three other plots No.1, 18, 22 & 27 for a sum of Rs.4500/- way back on 30.05.1966 by registered sale deed Exhibit-1 and by Exhibit-2 relinquishment deed, the share in the said plots of land of father Pukhraj, mother Smt.Sumitra Devi and brother Lakhpatraj was relinquished in favour of the plaintiff No.1-Smt. Shashi Jain, whose husband Narendra Kumar unfortunately died after two years of their marriage at the young age of 23 years. The relinquishment deed was executed on 18.05.1987. The plaintiffs further claim that the defendant-Om Prakash was given permissive possession of the portion of the said plot No.27 as Chowkidaar/Caretaker, on which a two rooms' construction was also raised by the father Shri Pukhraj in the year 1985, but later on, upon revocation of such license or permission, when the possession of the said portion of the plot No.27 was claimed from the defendant, he disputed and denied the same, and therefore, the present suit was filed in the year 1989 seeking possession. 3. The defendant on the other hand, claimed that he was not in permissive possession of the said portion of plot No.27, but had purchased plot No.27-A measuring 60 x 45 feet from one Smt. Sheila Kumari holding Power of Attorney on behalf of her two sons, namely, Lalit Singh and Himmat Singh. The said Smt. Sheila Kumari was wife of one Shri Takht Singh, and being owner under the registered sale deed executed in his favour Exhibit-A/1A dated 05.10.1983 for a sum of Rs.12,000/-, he was not liable to hand over the possession to the plaintiffs. 4. The said Smt. Sheila Kumari was wife of one Shri Takht Singh, and being owner under the registered sale deed executed in his favour Exhibit-A/1A dated 05.10.1983 for a sum of Rs.12,000/-, he was not liable to hand over the possession to the plaintiffs. 4. The learned trial court framed eight issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after taking oral as well as documentary evidence on record, including both the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant, decided the said issues in favour of the plaintiffs, except issue No.3 relating to one Affidavit of the defendant-Om Prakash dated 06.08.1985 admitting his possession as one of Chowkidar given in a previous suit between the plaintiffs and father Pukhraj, namely, Civil Suit No.313/1985 – Smt.Shashi Vs. Pukhraj, which was ultimately decided by the learned trial court upon a compromise between the family members of the plaintiffs and defendant. The learned trial court found that the alleged plots No.27-A and 27-B are not different plots than the plot No.27 claimed by the plaintiffs and the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant-Om Prakash on 05.10.1983 was a sham and non est document conferring no right upon him and the permissive possession of the defendant having been revoked by the plaintiffs, the defendant was bound to hand over the possession of the western portion of plot No.27 measuring 60 x 45 feet to the plaintiffs. 5. 5. The relevant findings of the learned trial court on issues No.4 & 6 in this regard are quoted below for ready reference:- ^^12- rudh uEcj 4 o 6 rudh uEcj 4 dks fl) djus dk Hkkj oknhuh ij o rudh ua-6 dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izfroknh ij gSA bu nksuks rudh;kr dh lk{; ,d nwljs ls bl izdkj ls lac) gS fd bu nksuks rudh;kr dk ,d lkFk fu.kZ; fd;k tkuk mfpr izzrhr gksrk gSA oknh lk{; ls cspkuukek izn’kZ 1 o gdrdZukek izn’kZ 2 dks vius i{k esa fu”ikfnr gksuk izzekf.kr fd;k x;k gS ftl lac/k esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fookn izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls ugh fd;k x;k gSA oknhx.k }kjk oknxzLr IykWV ua-27 gksuk crk;k x;k gS o izfroknh dh vksj ls oknxzLr IykWV ua-27 , gksuk dgk x;k g o izfroknh dh vksj ls ;g cgl dh x;h fd oknh i{k dh vksj ls tks cspkuukek izn’kZ 1 izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlesa tks oknxzLr IykWV dk vk’kkik’kk vafdr fd;k x;k gS og okn i= es pj.k la-1 es tks oknxzLRk IykWV dk vk’kk&ik’kk vafdr fd;k x;k gS mu nksuksa esa fojks/kkHkkl gSA okn i= esa oknxzLRk IykWV ds mŸkj esa 20 QqV lM+d o iwoZ esa Hkh 20 QqV dk jkLrk gkssuk crk;k x;k gS tcfd foØ; i= izn’kZ 1 es i`”B 7 ij iwoZ esa 30 QqV pkSM+h lM+d o mŸkj esa 50 QqV pkSMh lM+d gksuk crk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj mŸkj o iwoZ dh lM+d o vke jkLrs ds ckcr okn i= esa vafdr lhekadu o foØ; i= izzn’kZ 1 esa vafdr lhekadu esa varj gSA foØ; i= esa tks IykWV la-27 foØ; i= esa tks IykWV la-27 foØ; djuk fn[kk;k x;k gS og IykWV okn i= ds pj.k la- ,d esa vaafdr Hkw[k.M ugha gSA blesa izfroknh }kjk izLrqr foØ; i= fnukad 5-10-83 dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA bl foØ; i= ls tks Hkw[k.M izfroknh }kjk [kjhnuk crk;k x;k gS mlds mŸkj es 20 QqV dk vke jkLrk gksuk crk;k x;k gS o oknh i{k dh vksj ls Hkh vius okn i= esa oknxzLRk Hkw[k.M+ ds mŸkj esa 20 QqV lM+d gksuk crk;h x;h gSA oknh ds foØ; i= izn’kZ 1 esa mŸkj esa 50 QqV lM+d gksuk dgk x;k gS o bl laca/k es ftjg ds nkSjku oknh lk{kh 1 ‘kSysUnzflaag }kjk ;g dgk x;k gS fd jkLrs esa fHkUUkrk dk dkj.k ;g gS fd lkeus okyh tehu ij dCtk gks x;k gS IykWV dV x;s o edku cu x;sA oknh lk{; esa oknh us viuh lk{; ds nkSjku;g dFku fd;k gS fd IykaWV la-27 ds mUgksus nks Hkkx ugh fd;s o izfroknh }kjk Lo;a dk IykWV la-27&, gksuk crk;k x;k gS fdUrq okn i= o oknh o izzfroknh ds foØ; i= Øe’k% 1 o izn’kZ ,&1 dks ns[kus ls ;g cXkSj fdlh lansg ds iw.kZ:is.k Li”V gks jgk gS fd bu nksuks foØ; i=ks o okn i= esa ftl tk;nkn ds gnwn vafdr fd;s x;s gS os ,d gh tk;nkn gSA bu lHkh esa oknxzLr IykWV ds nf{k.k esa IykWV ua-26 gksuk o if’pe esa IykWV ua- 18 gksuk vafdr fd;k x;k gSA fookn dsoy ek= bl Hkw[k.M ds mŸkj o iwoZ esa fLFkr lM+d dh pkSM+kbZ ds lac/k esa gSaA izfroknh ds foØ; i= ls Hkh ;g Li”V gks jgk gS fd izzfroknh }kjk tks IykWV laa-27&, cuke 45 xq.kk 60 QqV [kjhn djuk crk;k x;k gS mlds iwoZ es IykWV ua-27&ch crkrs gq, vke jkLrk crk;k x;k gS o oknh i{k dh vksj ls okn i= o mlds i{k esa fu”ikfnr gq, foØ; i= esa bl leLr Hkw[k.M+ dks 90 xq.kk 60 QhV dk gksuk crkrs gq, ogh lahekdau crk;k x;k gS tks fd izzfroknh ds foØ; i= esa gS vraj dsoy ek= ;g gS fd oknh ds i{k esa tks foØ; i= fu”ikfnr fd;k x;k gS og Hkw[k.M 90 xq.kk 60 QqV dk gS o mlh Hkw[k.M ds if’peh vk/ks Hkkx dks IykWV la-27&, crkrs gq, izfroknh ds i{k esa foØ; i= fu”ikfnr fd;k x;k gS o ‘ks”k cps gq, vk/ks Hkkx dks IykWV la-27&ch gksuk fn[kk fn;k x;k gS ftlls ;g Li”V gS fd izfroknh }kjk ftl Hkw[k.M dks IykWV la-27&, o 27&ch gksuk nf’kZr fd;k x;k gS okLro esa og Hkw[k.M+ IykWV la-27 gS o IykWV la-27 ds gh 45 xq.kk 60 QqV] 45 xq.kk 60 QqV ds nks Hkkx djrs gq, if’peh Hkkx dks IykWV la-27&, o iwohZ Hkkx dks IykV la-27&ch gksuk fn[kk;k x;k gSA vkns’k 7 fu;e 3 O;-iz-l- ds vuqlkj ;fn vpy lEifŸk ds lac/k esa lheakdu ds vykok vU; fdlh vk/kkj ij Hkh mldh igpku dh tk ldrh gS rks bldh lhekvksa dks budksjiksjsV fd;k tkuk vko’;d ugha gSA gLrxr izzdj.k esa oknxzLRk IykWV dh la[;k o mlds nf{k.k o if’pe esa vk;s gq, Hkq[k.Mks ds uacj o fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, Hkh oknxzLr IykWV dh igpku esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ lansg ugh jgrk gSA ;g rF; fufoZokn gS fd mDr nksuks foØ; i= Jherh ‘khyk dqekjh }kjk fu”ikfnr fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k gS o bl lac/ka esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fookn ugha gS fd bu nksuks foØ; i=ksa ij ‘khyk dqekjh ds gLrk{kj ugha gksA izfroknh }kjk oknxzLr Hkw[k.M dks IykWV la[;k 27&, gksuk crk;k x;k gS fdaarq IykWV ua-27 , gksus ls iwoZ fdlh IykWV dk uEcj IykWV la-27 gksuk Hkh vko’;d gSA IykWV laaaa-27 gksus ds i’pkr gh IykWV la-27 &, o 27&ch dk Øe vkrk gSA izfroknh IykWV la-27 ds ckcr fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ rF; U;k;ky; ds le{k j[kus esa iw.kZr;k vleFkZ jgk gSA oknh lk{kh 2 iq[kjkt dh lk{; es Hkh ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd D;ksfd og bl Hkw[k.M+ dk tfj;s foØ; i= fnukad 30-5-66 bldk Lokeh Fkk vr% fnukad 5-10-83 dks bl Hkw[k.M+ dks foØ; djus dk ‘khyk dqekjh dks fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugh FkkA izfroknh }kjk Hkw[k.M+ la-27&, fnukad 5-10-83 dks ‘khyk dqekjh ls 12]000@& :i;s es [kjhnuk dgk gS fdarq izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku izfroknh Lo;a ds ;g dFku jgs gS fd bl IYkkWV dh jkf’k dks Hkqxrku mlus tqykbZ 83 es ‘khyk dqekjh dk fd;k FkkA ml le; ,xzhesaV gqvk ;k ugha mls irk ugha o bl IykWV dks [kjhnus ls iwoZ mlus ‘khyk dqekjh ls ckrphr gqbZ Fkh og yfyrflag o fgEerflaag] r[krflag dks ugh tkurkA ‘khyk dqekjh ls igys bl IykWV ds ekfyd dkSu Fks mls irk ugh o ‘khyk dekjh us ;g IykWV fdlls [kjhnk Fkk ;k mlds iêk Fkk mls irk ughA ‘khyk dqekjh us fdlh U;k;ky; ls IykWV [kjhnus dk vf/kdkj fy;k ;k ugha mls irk ughA ‘khyk dqekjh ds uke dk jftLVªh iêk ;k fdlh U;k;ky; dk vkns’k mlus ugha ns[kkA bl IykWV ds uEcj 27&, mls ‘khyk dqekjh o egkohj esgrk us crk;s FksA mlus fdlh ljdkjh foHkkx ls bl IykWV ds uEcj ds ckjs es irk ugh fd;kA IykWV uEcj 1 ls 27 fdlds uke Fks mls irk ugh mlus ;g Hkh irk ugha fd;k fd oknxzLr IykWV u-27&, ds ckcr fdlh U;k;ky; esa py jgs eqdnes ds ckcr Hkh irk ugh fd;kA lu~ 1983 esa yfyr flag o fgEerflag ckfyx Fks ;k ugha mls irk ugha o ‘khyk dqekjh us jftLVªh ds oDr oknxzLr lEifŸk IykWV ua-27&, ls lacf/kr dksbZ Hkh nLrkost ugha fn;k o mls irk ugh gS fd yfyrflag o fgEerflag us ‘khyk dqekjh dks IykWV ua-27&, cspus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj fn;k ;k ughA bl lac/k es ‘khyk dqekjh us mls dksbZ nLrkost ugha fn[kk;s u ugha fn;s o u gh mlus ekaxsA bl lk{kh }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd jftLVªh dh fy[kr fdlds }kjk fy[kh x;h mls irk ugha mlds lkeus izn’kZ ,&1 cspkuukek VkbZi ugha gqvk o bl cspkuukek ij gLrk{kj gq, ml le; og ekStwn ugha Fkk og jftLVªh foHkkx esa ugh x;k o mlus jde 12]000@& :I;s rhu fd’rks esa vnk fd;s o fdl fd’r esa fdruh jkf’k nh mls irk ugh gSA bl izdkj izfroknh Lo;a dh lk{; esa ;g Li”V gS fd mlus foØsrl ds VkbZVy nLrkost ,oa foØsrk ds foØ; djus ds vf/kdkj d lac/k esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ iwNrkN ugha dhA gekjh jk; es Øsrk dk ;g ikou drZO; gS fd og foØsrk ds VkbZVy ds lac/k esa iw.kZ tkudkjh djs o foØsrk dk VkbZVy nLRkkost ,oa foØsrk ds foØ; djus ds vf/kdkj ds lac/ka esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ iwNrkN ugha dhA gekjh jk; esa Øsrk dk ;g ikou dŸkZO; gS fd og foØsrk ds VkbZVy ds lac/k esa iw.kZ tkudkjh djs o foØsrk dk VkbZVy izekf.kr djus dk mŸkjnkf;Ro Lo;a Øsrk dk gSA oknxzLr IykWV foØsrk ‘khyk dqekjh }kjk lu~ 1966 esa gh oknh i{k dks foØ; dj fn;k x;k Fkk rRi’pkr lu~ 1+983 es bl IykWV ds vk/ks Hkkx dks izzfroknh dks foØ; djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ‘khyk dqekjh dks ikl ugh Fkk vr% voS/k o ‘kwU; dh ifjHkk”kk es vkrk gSA izfroknh }kjk oknxzLr IykWV ij Lo;a dks pkSdhnkj ds rkSj ij dkfcr gksus ds rF; dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k gS o ftl foØ; i= izn’kZ ,&1 ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh viuk LokfeRo gksuk crk jgk gS og foØ; i= fcuk vf/kdkj gksus ds dkj.k izfroknh ds i{k es dksbZ vf/kdkj mRiUu ugh djrk gsSA vr% ,slh voLFkk es aokfnuh izfroknh ls oknxzLr IykWV dk dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ik;h tkrh gS o ;g Hkh r; fd;k tkrk gS fd oknxzLr IykWV ua-27&, ugh gksdj IykWV ua-27 dk gh Hkkx gS vr% mijksDr nksuks rudh;kr dk fu.kZ; okfnuh ds i{k esa o izfroknh ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA vkns’k vr% oknhx.k dk okn fo:) izfroknh e; [kpkZ fMØh fd;k tkrk gS o izfroknh dk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd oknxzLr Hkw[k.M la-27 ds if’peh Hkkx {ks=Qy 60 xq.kk 45 QqV] ftlds mŸkj es 20 QqV dk jkLrk] nf{k.k esa IykWV ua-26 iwoZ esa IykWV ua-27 dk ckdh fgLlk o if’pe esa IykWV ua-18 gS dk [kkyh dCtk oknhx.k dks lqiqnZ djsA oknhx.k izfroknh ls rkjh[k nk;jh nkok ls rkfeyus dCtk izfroknh ls 750@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls ehu izksfQVl Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA rnuqlkj fMØh ipkZ eqfrZc gksA Sd/- ¼,Lk-lh-fla?ky½ vij ftyk ,oa ls’ku U;k;k/kh’k la[;k 3] tks/kiqj^^ 6. Being aggrieved, the defendant filed the present first appeal before this Court, which was initially reported to be time barred by 33 days. On the question of this delay itself, the matter came to be referred to the Larger Bench of this Court, and that reference came to be recently answered by the Larger Bench of this Court with the following observations:- “24. Learned Judge in Moolchand Soni Vs. Virendra Kumar, (1981 RLW 121) has observed as under:- 30. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the decision in Mool Chand's case fails to lay-down the correct law. The decision in Suresh Kumar Sharma v. Idol Laxmanji Maharaj, (1973 RLW 160) lays down the correct position of law in respect of Rule 234 and 235 of the General Rules.” The questions referred to us, as a matter of fact have already ben adjudicated and answered by Division Bench of this Court in Ram Lal v. Bhanwari Devi, (1984 RLW 605), hence no further adjudication of the issue is desirable. The reference made to this Bench hence is answered in the terms of the law laid down in the case of Ram Lal v. Bhanwari Devi (supra). Let the appeal be listed before learned Single Bench for disposal of the same in accordance with law. Early disposal of the appeal is highly desirable as the same is pending at its preliminary stage since the year 2000. sd/- sd/- sd/- (ARUN BHANSALI), J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. (GOVIND MATHUR), J.” 7. On merits of the appeal, Mr. R.R. Nagori, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant raised the following submissions:- (i) That the sale in favour of the plaintiffs of the plot No.27 by Exhibit-1 sale deed dated 30.05.1966 was not proved by the plaintiffs, and even if the signatures on the sale deed can be said to have been proved, the contents of the said sale deed were not proved before the learned trial court, and therefore, in view of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the sale of plot No.27 in favour of the plaintiffs is not proved, and thus, subsequent sale of plot No.27-A in favour of the defendant-Om Prakash by Sheila Kumari could not be held to be non est and void by the learned trial court. Hence, the decree of possession under appeal deserves to be set aside. Hence, the decree of possession under appeal deserves to be set aside. (ii) That the defendant-Om Prakash had purchased the said plot No.27-A by registered sale deed dated 05.10.1983 and he is in possession of the same as owner thereof, and it was not a case of permissive possession given by the plaintiffs or father Pukhraj to him in the year 1985 as claimed, and therefore, the decree of possession could not be given. (iii) That the Affidavit dated 06.08.1985 purportedly given by the defendant-Om Prakash in the previous Civil Suit No.313/1985 – Smt. Shashi Vs. Pukhraj filed by the plaintiff Shashi against her father-in-law Pukhraj, which was an injunction suit, was not given by him and the plaintiffs failed to prove the said fact and the defendant-Om Prakash himself had raised the construction on his plot No.27-A and was living therein since 1984, and had taken power and water connections in his name on the said plot of land and the findings in favour of the defendant by the learned trial court about this Affidavit are correct and the suit therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 8. He relied upon a number of case laws in support of his contention, mainly on the submission that in the absence of proof of the contents of the document, namely, sale deed Exhibit-1 dated 30.05.1996, which has not been proved by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim the possession and decree in their favour. The list of cases relied upon by Mr. R.R. Nagori, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant is given below for ready reference:- (a) Om Prakash Berlia & Anr. Vs. Unit Trust of India & Ors., AIR 1983 BOMBAY 1. (b) Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Invest Import, AIR 1981 SC 2085 . (c) Bishwanath Rai Vs. Sachhidanand Singh, AIR 1971 SC 1949 . (d) Madholal Sindhu Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1954 BOMBAY 305 (Vol.41, C.N.87). (e) Sir Mohammed Yusuf & Anr. Vs. D & Anr., AIR 1968 BOMBAY 112 (V 55 C 20). (f) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay & Anr., AIR 1982 BOMBAY 387. (g) Smt. Lalita James & Ors. Vs. Ajit Kumar & Ors., AIR 1991 MADHYA PRADESH 15. (h) Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1413 . (i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. (f) Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay & Anr., AIR 1982 BOMBAY 387. (g) Smt. Lalita James & Ors. Vs. Ajit Kumar & Ors., AIR 1991 MADHYA PRADESH 15. (h) Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1413 . (i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853 . (j) Kanhaiyalal through LRs Vs. Nanagram through LRs, 2009(4) WLC (Raj.) 366. (k) Shobha Satyanarayan Birla Vs. Janabai Parshuram Pawar, 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (BOMBAY). 9. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Chhangani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs/decree-holders vehemently urged that the permissive possession given to the Chowkidar/Caretaker-Om Prakash was sought to be abused by setting up a false title over the portion of the suit property, namely, plot No.27 situated in a prime locality of Jodhpur and the defendant had failed to prove any consideration having been given by him to Smt. Sheila Kumari of Rs.12,000/-or otherwise, for purchase of the said plot No.27-A and the said alleged contract was hit by Section 25 of the Contract Act. Mr. Ashok Chhangani also submitted that there were no plots No.27-A or 27-B, as claimed by the defendant, whereas the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs alongwith Relinquishment Deed Exhibits 1 & 2 respectively clearly establish their title and legal possession right from the year 1966 and the defendant-Om Prakash had himself admitted in his Affidavit dated 06.08.1985 Exhibits 3 & 4 given in Civil Suit No.313/1985 – Smt. Shashi Vs. Pukhraj, which ended in a compromise that he was in permissive possession through father Shri Pukhraj since the year 1985 in that plot No.27, and therefore, he cannot be permitted to resile from his own affidavit. 10. Mr. Ashok Chhangani also urged that the findings of the learned trial court on issue No.3 in this regard deserve to be reversed by this Court as the plaintiffs had well proved before the learned trial court the swearing-in of the said Affidavit by the defendant-Om Prakash in Civil Suit No.313/1985 – Smt.Shashi Vs. Pukhraj. He also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention :- (a) Jagdish Singh Vs. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497 . (b) Smt.Narendra Kumari Vs. Smt.Shanta Kothari, 2014(3) WLC (Raj.) 789. (c) Hardevinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors., 2013 AIR SCW 447. Pukhraj. He also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention :- (a) Jagdish Singh Vs. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497 . (b) Smt.Narendra Kumari Vs. Smt.Shanta Kothari, 2014(3) WLC (Raj.) 789. (c) Hardevinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors., 2013 AIR SCW 447. (d) Pusaram & Ors. Vs. Manmal & Ors., AIR 1955 Rajasthan 186 (Vol. 42, C. 59 Nov.). (e) Ramdas Bansal (Dead) through LR Vs. Kharag Singh Baid & Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 548 . (f) Pormanan & Ors. Vs. P. Thiagarajan, 2011 AIR CC 941 (MAD). (g) Shyam Lal & Anr. Vs. Vijay Singh alias Bijendra Singh & Ors., AIR 2008 ALLAHABAD 1. (h) Chhaju & Ors. Vs. Gian Chand & Anr., 2013 (130) AIC 765 (H.P., H.C.). (J) Maria Margardia Sequeira Fernandes & ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria – (2012) 5 SCC 370 . 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, as well as the judgments cited at the Bar, which to the relevant extent are discussed below. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present appeal of the defendant-Om Prakash deserves to be dismissed, as the defendant-Om Prakash has made a futile attempt to set up a title over the portion of the plot No.27 under the guise of a sale deed in his favour purportedly executed by Smt. Sheila Kumari on 05.10.1983 as a Power of Attorney holder of her sons, namely, Lalit Singh and Himmat Singh. A bare perusal of Exhibit-1 Sale Deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs' father Shri Pukhraj on 30.05.1966, would reveal that the said sale deed was executed by Shri Takht Singh, his wife Smt.Sheila Kumari, their major son Lalit Singh and Shri Takhat Singh in the capacity of guardian of minor son Himmat Singh. The said sale deed for four plots No.1, 18, 22 & 27 inter alia of plot No.27 measuring 90 x 60 feet gave full details of the other plots and neighbourhood and the said sale deed has never been challenged by any party. After subsequent relinquishment deed Exhibit-02 dated 18.05.1987, the rights of the other family members also came to be relinquished in favour of the plaintiff No.1-Smt.Shashi Jain wife of Late Shri Narendra Kumar. The findings of the trial court about matching of neighbourhood are absolutely correct based on the evidence before it. 13. After subsequent relinquishment deed Exhibit-02 dated 18.05.1987, the rights of the other family members also came to be relinquished in favour of the plaintiff No.1-Smt.Shashi Jain wife of Late Shri Narendra Kumar. The findings of the trial court about matching of neighbourhood are absolutely correct based on the evidence before it. 13. The Affidavit Exhibit-3 dated 06.08.1985 of defendant-Om Prakash in Civil Suit No.313/1985 – Smt. Shashi Vs. Pukhraj makes an interesting reading, and therefore, the same is quoted in extenso below for ready reference:- ^^Jheku vfr-eqfUlQ eftLVªsV uaŒ 1] tks/kiqjA flfoy lwV uaŒ313@1985 & Jhefr ‘k’kh cuke iq[kjkt ‘kiFk & i= eS vkse izdk’k iq= Jh jktkjke Tkh ikfr /kksch fuoklh IykWV uaŒ27] Hks:foykl ljnkj Dyc ds ikl] tks/kiqj ‘kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwa fd %& fd IykWV uaŒ27 ‘kgj tks/kiqj esa Hks: foykl dh tehu es tks fd ljnkj Dyc ds ikl vk’h gqvk gSA Mdr IykWV ij pkjks rjQ ifê;ksa egkohj dqekj esgrk us [kM+s jgdj yxok;h FkhA bl IykWV ij ,d dejk cuk gqvk gSA fd eSa ;g IykWV ua-27 ij fiNys N%ekg ls jg jgk gwaA eSus dHkh Hkh mijksDr IykWV ij Jhefr ‘kf’k tSu dk dCtk ugh ns[kkA fd eS Jh iq[kjkt cksgjk ds dgus ls ;gka jg jgk gwaA ftlls mudks dksbZ ,rjkt ugh gSA mDr IykWV ij jgdj pkSdknkjh dk dk;Z djrk gwaA Sd/- ‘kiFkdrkZ rlnhd %& eS vkse izdk’k iq= Jh jktkjke th tkfr /kksch] fuoklh IykWV uaŒ27] Hks: foykl ljnkj Dyc ds ikl] tks/kiqj esa jgus okyk ;g rlnhd djrk gwa fd mDr ‘kiFk i= ds in la[;k 1 ls 3 esjs futh Kku ls lgh gSA bldk dksbZ fgLlk >wBk ugh gS vkSj u ugh dqN Nqik;k gSA lR; esa ijekRek esjh enn djsA Sd/- ’kiFkdrkZ^^ 14. As against fair and unambiguous title at earlier point of time in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant-Om Prakash Dhobi, who was put in permissive possession as Chowkidar/Caretaker of the said plot, tried to set up his own title over the said plot or part thereof, claiming the Exhibit-A-1A Sale Deed dated 05.10.1983 for Rs.12,000/- executed by Smt.Sheila Kumari w/o Shri Takht Singh as Power of Attorney of Shri Lalit Singh and Shri Himmat Singh. Neither any such Power of Attorney was produced before the learned trial court, nor the principals Shri Lalit Singh and Shri Himmat Singh who had admittedly become major by 1983, have signed the said sale deed. Neither any such Power of Attorney was produced before the learned trial court, nor the principals Shri Lalit Singh and Shri Himmat Singh who had admittedly become major by 1983, have signed the said sale deed. From the statements of DW-1 Om Prakash himself, he utterly failed to establish giving of any consideration to Smt.Sheila Kumari. His statements are in fact riddled with inconsistencies and false statements. In the examination-in chief, he states that he is living in plot No.27-A since 1984, which he purchased from Smt.Sheila Kumari on 05.10.1983 for Rs.12,000/-. Then he constructed a boundary wall with stone pattis and two rooms, toilet and bathroom and two kitchens thereon, which construction work went on for about three years; then he took power and water connections in his name on the said plot. But in his cross-examination, he contradicts himself by saying that he was serving in Air Force and was living in Air Force Officers' Mess Servant Quarters and in July, 1983 he made payment of the said amount to Smt.Sheila Kumari in instalments. He also admits that the stone pattis were constructed by one Shri Mahavir Kumar Mehta. He did not take any permission for construction from the then UIT or Municipal Corporation. The plot in question was vacant from 1983 to 1986. He did not know as to when he purchased the said plot from Smt.Sheila Kumari, whether she had left the civil world and had become a Sadhvi, and that, he took possession of the said plot in the year 1986 and then constructed the boundary wall thereon. 15. The plot in question was vacant from 1983 to 1986. He did not know as to when he purchased the said plot from Smt.Sheila Kumari, whether she had left the civil world and had become a Sadhvi, and that, he took possession of the said plot in the year 1986 and then constructed the boundary wall thereon. 15. The relevant extracts of his cross-examination dated 24.09.1998 are quoted below for ready reference:- ^^-----eSusa bl IykWV [kjhnus ls igys ‘khyk dqekjh ls iwNk Fkk fdlh ls iwNrkN ugh dhA bl IykWV ds ekfyd dkSu gS bl ckcr~~ esjh vkSj fdlh Lks ckrphr ugh gqbZ dsoy ‘khyk dqekjh ls ckrphr gqbZ FkhA ‘khyk dqekjh ds dqy fdrus IykWV bl {ks= esa gS eq>s ekywe ughA eS yfyrflag o fgEerflag iq= r[rflag dks ugh tkurkA bu O;fDr;ks ls u rks eS feyk gwa u tkurk gwa u gh eq>s budh mez ds ckjs es irk gSA ‘khyk dqekjh ds igys bu IykWVks dks ekfyd dkSu Fkk eq>s irk ughA ‘khyk dqekjh us ;g IykWV fdlh ls [kjhns Fks ;k bldk Ikêk Fkk eq>s irk ughA ‘khyk dqekjh ls fdlh U;k;ky; ls IykWV [kjhnus dk vf/kdkj fy;k ;k ugh eq>s irk ughA ‘khykdqekjh ds uke dh jftLVªh iêk ;k fdlh U;k;ky; dk vkns’k eSus ugh ns[kkA bl IykWV ds uacj 27, eq>s ‘khyk dqekjh o egkohj esgrk us crk;s FksA eSus fdlh Hkh ljdkjh foHkkx ;w-vkbZ-Vh- ;k uxj fuxe ls ekywe ugha fd;k fd bl IykWV ds uacj D;k gSA IYkkWV uacj 1 ls yxkdj 27 uacj fdlds uke ds Fks eq>s irk ughA eSus jftLVªh foHkkx esa ;g ekywe fd;k Fkk fd oknxzLr IykWV ua-27 , igys ls fcdk gqvk gS ;k ughA eSus jftLVªh foHkkx ls ekSf[kd iwNrkN dh Fkh fy[kr esa izkFkZuk i= ugh fn;k Fkk eSus fdl O;fDRk ls iwNrkN dh Fkh mldk uke ;kn ughA eSus jftLVªh foHkkx ds jsdMZ dk fujh{k.k ugha fd;k FkkA eSus ;g iwNrkN bl IykWV l-27, ds ckcr~ ugha dh] bldk dksbZ eqdnek U;k;ky; esa py jgk gS ;k ughA izn’kZ&4 ij esjs gLrk{kj ugha gSA egkohj dqekj esgrk ls esjk dksbZ >xM+k ugha gSA ;g xyr gS fd eSus vfr- eqaflQ uacj ,d tks/kiqj esa ‘k’kh cuke iq[kjkt ds eqdnes esa ;g ‘kiFk i= fn;k gks fd eS IykWV uacj 27 ij jgdj pkSdhnkjh dk dk;Z dj jgk gwaA izn’kZ&4 eSusa vkt ls igys dHkh ugh ns[kkA eSUks bl eqdnes gksus ds ckn esa Hkh eSusa ;g tkudkjh izkIr ugh dh fd IykWV uacj 27 , ds ckjs esa igys dksbZ eqdnek py jgk Fkk ;k ughaA eSus vius tokc nkos es in la[;k ikap es , ls ch fgLlk fy[kk;k FkkA tks lgh gSA tokc nkos ds in la[;k ikap esa , ls ch fgLls esa lh ls M+h fgLlk xyr gSA IYkkWV uacj 27 , [kjhnus ds ckn eSusa ml ij fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k FkkA Nh.ks egkohj dqekj esgrk us [kM+s gksdj yxokbZ FkhA ;w-vkbZ-Vh- o uxj fuxe esa eS ijfe’ku Hkh ysus x;k Fkk rks crk;k fd bl ,sfj;s dk uD’kk cuk gqvk ugha gSA eSus ;w-vkbZ-Vh- esa Hkou fuekZ.k gsrq dksbZ izkFkZuk i= ugh fn;kA eSus fuekZ.k dk;Z 1986 esa ‘kq: fd;k FkkA 1983 ls 1986 rd ;g IykWV [kkyh iM+k jgkA ftl le; eSusa IykWV [kjhnk ml le; rd ‘khyk dqekjh lk/kq cuh Fkh ;k ugha eq>s irk ughaA eq>s izn’kZ&8 uksfVl izkIr gqvk FkkA bl uksfVl dks eSus tokc fnyk;k ;k ugh eq>s ekywe ughA eSusa uksfVl vkus ds ckn es o nkok djus ds ckn esa eSus jftLVªh foHkkx ls IykWV uacj 27, dh lu~ 1966 esa jftLVªh gks pqdh gS bl ckcr~ tkudkjh izkIr ugh dhA izn’kZ&1 ij ds ls ,y ‘khyk dqekjh ds gLrk{kj gS ;k ugha eq>s irk ughA IykWV laa[;k ,d] vBkjg o lrkbZl oknxzLr IykWV ds {ks= esa fLFkr gS blds igys ekfyd dkSu Fkk vkSj vc ekfyd dkSu gS eq>s ekywe ughA izn’kZ&1 jftLVªh eSus vkt igyh ckj ns[kh gSA eq>s irk ugh fd IykWV uacj ,d vBkjg o lrkbZl oknxzLRk {ks= ds lu~ 1966 esa ujsUnz dqekj o y[kirjkt us [kjhn fy;s gksA eq>s irk ugh fd IykWV uacj 27, fgEerflag o yfyrflag iq= r[rflag ds Fks ;k ughA izn’kZ &,&1 cspkuukek esa lh ls M+h fgLlk lgh fy[kk gqvk gSA lu~ 1983 esa yfyrflag o fgEerflag ckfyx Fks ;k ugha eq>s ekywe ughA eq>s ‘khyk dqekjh us jftLVªh ds oDr lEifŸk IykWV uacj 24, ls lacf/kr dksbZ nLrkost ugh fn;k FkkA eq>s ;g irk ugha fd yfyrflag o fgEerflag us ‘khyk dqekjh dks IykWV uacj 27 , cspus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj fn;k ;k ughaA eq>s ‘khyk dqekjh us yfyrflag o fgEerflag }kjk ‘khyk dqekjh dks IykWV ucja 27, cspus dk vf/kdkj nsus dks dksbZ nLrkost u rks fn[kk;k u gh fn;k vkSj u gh eSUksa ekaxkA D;ksfd eq>s bl ckjs esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugh FkhA jftLVªh dh fy[kr fdlh odhy }kjk fy[kh xbZ ;k ugh eq>s irk ughA izn’kZ ,&1 cspkuukek dkSu VkbZi djokdj yk;k Fkk eq>s irk ughA VkbZi gksus ds fdrus fnu ckn izn’kZ ,&1 jftLVªh djok;k Fkk eq>s irk ughA izn’kZ ,&1 ij gLrk{kj , ls ch gq, ml le; eSa ekStwn ugh FkkA eq>s izn’kZ ,&1 ‘khyk dqekjh us fn;k FkkA eS jftLVªh foHkkx esa ugh x;k FkkA eSus IykWV uacj 27 , ckjg gtkj :i;s es [kjhnk FkkA eSus ;g jde rhu fd’rks esa vnk dh FkhA lcls igys tqykbZ esa :i;s fn;s Fks ysfdu fdrus :i;s fn;s Fks ;kn ughA tqykbZ esa tks eSus ‘khyk dqekjh dks jde nh Fkh mldh dksbZ jlhn ugh yh FkhA nwljh ckj eSus :i;s vxLr esa fn;s Fks mldh Hkh jlhn ugh yh Fkh vxLRk esa fdrus :i;s fn;s Fks ;kn ughA rhljh fdLr flrEcj esa nh Fkh mldh Hkh jlhn ugh yh Fkh vkSj fdrus :i;s fn;s ;g Hkh ;kn ugh ysfdu iwjh jde eSus flrECkj esa ns nh FkhA vDVwcj 1983 esa eq>s jftLVªh ykdj nh FkhA jftLVªh vDVwcj esa eq>s ykdj nh Fkh ysfdu jftLVªh foHkkx esa jftLVªh is’k dh xbZ Fkh rFkk ‘khyk dqekjh dks dc feyh Fkh bldh esjs dks tkudkjh ugha gSA IykWV ij dCtk eSus 1986 esa fd;k Fkk vkSj ckm.Mªh cuokbZ FkhA 1986 esa dCtk fd;k ml le; ‘khyk dqekjh ekSds ij Fkh ;k ugh eq>s irk ughA nkok djus ds ckn esa esjs dks ‘khyk dqekjh feyh ugha blfy, esjh ckr ugh gqbZA eSus ‘khyk dqekjh dks <wa<k Fkk ysfdu feyh ughA nkok gksus ds ckn esa eS egkohj dqekj ls ugh feykA IykWV uacj 27, ij dksVZ dk dksbZ O;fDr ugh vk;k FkkA 1989 esa IykWV uacj 27, dk fdjk;k lk<s lkr lkS :i;s vk ldrk Fkk ;k ugh irkA eq>s ;g irk ugha fd IYkkWV uacj 27, ds ‘kq: esa ekfyd fgEerflag o yfyrflaag Fks ;k ughA eq>s ;g irk ugha fd fgEerflaag o yfyrflag dh vksj ls ‘khyk dqekjh us IykWV la[;k 27, y[kirjkt o ujsUnz dqekj dks fnukad 30-5-66 dks cspk gksA ujsUnz dqekj o y[kirjkt dks eSa ugh tkurkA eq>s irk ugh fd ujsUnz dqekj dks LoxZokl gks x;k gks vkSj oknhx.k ujsunz dh iRuh vkSj iq= gks rks eq>s irk ughaA 1989 esa oknxzLr IykWV uacj 27, dh dher D;k Fkh Ekq>s irk ughA^^ 16. It is also worthwhile to notice the statements of father Shri Pukhraj, whose statements were recorded by the learned trial court on 21.02.1998. It is also worthwhile to notice the statements of father Shri Pukhraj, whose statements were recorded by the learned trial court on 21.02.1998. His statements are quoted in extenso as under for ready reference :- ^^eS Jhefr ‘khyk dqekjh dks tkurk gwaA eSus ‘khyk dqekjh ls vius cPpks ds uke tehu [kjhnh Fkh tks tehu eSusa 1966 esa [kjhnh Fkh ftldh fy[kki<+h izn’kZ&1 x.kirjk; th VkVh;k vf/koDrk }kjk MªkV dh xbZ FkhA x.kirjk; th VkVh;k vkSj eS cpiu esa lkFk jgs gS vkSj ,d gh eksgYys esa jgs gSA eS buds gLrk{kj ns[kdj crk ldrk gwaA izn’kZ&1 ij , ls ch gLrk{kj x.kirjkt th ,MoksdsV ds gSA izn’kZ&1 ij ds ls ,y izR;sd i`”V ij ‘khyk dqekjh ds ,e ls ,u yfyrflag ds o vkbZ ls ts r[rflag ds gLrk{kj gSA izn’kZ&1 ij gLrk{kj bu yksxks }kjk esjs lkeus fd;s x;s Fks blfy, eS igpkurk gwaA cspkuukek fu”ikfnr gksus ds ckn esa cspkuukek es fy[ks IYkkWV ij dCtk esjk jgkA ujsUnz dqekj o y[kirjkt [kjhnnkj esjs iq= gSA cspku ds le; nksuks ukckfyd FksA ujsUnz dqekj dk LoxZokl gks x;k gSA ‘kf’k esjh iq= o/kq gS tks ujsUnz dqekj dh iRuh gSA orZeku esa esjh iq= o/kq ‘kf’k o mldk yM+dk ‘kysUnz oknxzLr IykWV ds ekfyd gSA ‘kf’k o ‘kySUnz dk IykWV nsus dh fy[ki<+h djkbZ FkhA esjs }kjk djkbZ xbZ fy[ki<+h vly izn’kZ&2 gSA izn’kZ&2 ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS lh ls Mh essjh iRuh lqfe=k nsoh ds o b ls ,Q esjs vU; iq= y[kirjkt ds gLrk{kj gSA izn’kZ&2 ij lk{k j.kthr yks<+k o guoar jkt VkVh;k }kjk M+kyh xbZ FkhA lk{k ds gLrk{kj izn’kZ&2 ij th ls ,p guoaarjkt th VkVh;k o vkbZ ls ts j.kthr yks<+k ds gSA lk[k ds gLrk{kj esjs lkeus fd;s x;s Fks blfy, es igpkurk gwaA IykWV ua-27 ds ckjs es esjs o esjh iq= o/kw ‘kf’k okfnuh ds lkFk eqdnek pyk FkkA mles izfroknh vkseizdk’k us ‘kiFk i= is’k fd;k FkkA ‘kf’k okfnuh }kjk esjs fo:) is’k fd;s x;s nkos esa izfroknh }kjk ‘kiFk i= is’k fd;k x;k Fkk tks vly ‘kiFk i= izn’kZ&4 gSA ftl ij , ls ch gLrk{kj vkseizdk’k ds gSA izfroknh vkseizdk’k dks eSus oknxzLr IykWV ij pkSdhnkj ds :Ik esa j[kk FkkA izfroknh oknxzLr IykWV dk ekfyd ugh gSA IykWV ua-27 ,d gh IykWV gSA eSus bl IykWV u-27 dk dksbZ foHkktu ugh fd;k FkkA oknxzLr IykWV y[kirjkt o ujsUnz }kjk [kjhnus ds ckn esa ‘khyk dqekjh dk dHkh Hkh dCtk ;k ekfydkuk vf/kdkj ugh jgkA ‘khyk dqekjh dks oknxzLr IykWV cspus dk vf/kdkj ugh jgkA izn’kZ&2 ij lqfe=k nsoh o y[kirjkt }kjk esjs lkeus gLrk{kj fd;s x;s FksA 1986&87 tc rd IykWV esjs dCts esa jgk ml le; rd bl IykWV ds 60 xq.kk 45 QqV fgLls dk fdjk;k 600&700 :i;s izfrekg vk ldrk FkkA oknxzLr IykWV ds vykok Hkh esjs bl {ks= es IykWV vk;s gq, FksA **ftjg }kjk odhy izfroknh^^ izLrqr okn eSus ugh i<+kA ;g lgh gS fd oknxzLRk Hkw[k.M+ ckcr dks gnwn okn i= esa fy[ks x;s gS mldh eq>s tkudkjh ugh gSA izn’kZ&1 esa i`”B la[;k N o lkr esa oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ds fooj.k iwoZ es 20 QqV pkSM+h lM+d if’pe esa IykWV la[;k 18 mŸkj es 50 QqV pkSM+h lM+d o mlds i’pkr~ ikdZ dh tehu rFkk nf{k.k esa IykWV la[;k 26 n’kkZ;k x;k gSA izn’kZ&1 tks cspkuukek fu”ikfnr gqvk Fkk og esjs iq= ujsUnz dqekj o y[kirjkt ds i{k es gqvk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ&1 Ckspkuukek ls ujsUnz dqekj o y[kirjkt ekfyd FksA ujsUnz dqekj dh e`R;q 23 o”kZ dh mez esa gqbZ FkhA ;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ&1 esa cspkuukek esa esjs vkSj esjh iRuh lqfe=k nsoh ds dksbZ gd ;k vf/kdkj ugh FksA egkohj dqekj esgrk iq= Nrjeyth dks eS tkurk gwaA ;g esjs eksgYys es jgrk gSA esjh buls dksbZ fj’rsnkjh ugh gSA esjs ;gka budk vkuk tkuk ugh jgrk FkkA iwoZ esa tks ‘kf’k tSu us nkok fd;k Fkk mlesa mlus D;k&Dk vuqrks”k ekaxk Fkk eq>s vkt tqckuh ;kn ugh gSA mlesa i{kdkj okfnuh ‘kf’k tSu o izfroknh esa FkkA bldk fuiVkjk 1987 es gks x;kA og okn jkthukes QSlyk gqvk gS esjs esjh iq= o/kq o ikS= ds i{k esa gd rdZukek fy[kk gS jkthukes ds iwjs rF; eq>s ;kn ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkseizdk’k ml eqdnes es i{kdkj ugh FkkA ;g lgh gS fd izn’kZ&4 ‘kiFk i= es eSus vkseizdk’k dh igpku ugh dh FkhA blesa vkSFk dfe’uj dkSu Fkk esjs dks ;kn ughA eS vkseizdk’k dks pkSdhnkjh ds :Ik es ekgokjh 30 :i;s vnk djrk FkkA bldk dksbZ [kpZ [kkrk ugh [kksykA vkseizdk’k dks eSusa o”kZ 1985 esa pkSdhnkj j[kk FkkA egkohj dqekj iq= Nrjey izkiVhZ fM+fyx dk dke djrk gS ;k ugha esjs dks irk ughA ;g dguk xyr gS fd egkohj dqekj esjk fj’rsnkj gksA vHkh egkohj dqekj dgka jgrk gS eq>s irk ugh D;ksfd eSus og eksgYyk 1991 esa NksM+ fn;k FkkA oknxzLr Hkw[k.M+ ij eSa vkt ls igys vafre ckj 1986 esa x;k FkkA 1986 esa oknxzLr IykWV ij nks dejksa dk fuekZ.k djok;k gqvk gksxk fQj dgk ,d ;k nks dejksa dk fuekZ.k djok;k gqvk gksxk ysfdu og fuekZ.k esjs }kjk djok;k x;k gSA eSus fuekZ.k fdrus QqV ckbZ fdrus QqV ds dejks dk fuekZ.k djok;k ;g eq>s ;kn ughA dejks ij fdruh Nh.ks Mkyh ;g Hkh eq>s ekywe ughA vkt [kqn dgk fd dksBjh VkbZ cukbZ FkhA fuekZ.k dk;Z dk esjs ikl dksbZ fglkc fdrkc ugh gSA Bsdsnkj o dkjhxjh ds uke Hkh esjs dks ;kn ugh gSA ;g xyr gS fd ftl IykWV dks eSa IykWV la[;k 27 gksuk dgrk gwa og IykWV la[;k&27 u gksdj ds IykWV ua-27 , gksA ;g xyr gS fd fnukad 5-10-83 dks izfroknh vkseizdk’k us fookfnr Hkw[k.M+ 27, ‘khyk dqekjh bR;kfn ls [kjhnk gksA D;ksfd eSa bldk ekfyd Fkk blfy, mldks cspus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fookfnr Hkw[k.M+ ij vkse izdk’k us dbZ eghuks rd fuekZ.k djok;k gks vkSj ml ij fctyh o ikuh ds dusD’ku izfroknh vkseizdk’k ds uke ls gksA fctyh ikuh ds fcy vkseizdk’k blh irs ij vkrs gks rks eq>s irk ughA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izn’kZ&4 ij , ls ch gLrk{kj izfroknh vkseizdk’k ds u gksA fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M+ ds uke ds Hkw[k.M+ dk ekgokj fdjk;k 600&700 :i;s dgus dk vk/kkj ;g gS fd esjs vkSj Hkh Hkw[k.M+ vk;s gq, Fks vkSj eS ogk cjkcj vkrk tkrk jgrk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd esjs Hkw[k.M+ks dks dHkh fdlh O;fDr dks fdjk;s ij ugh fn;kA eS ekdsZV jsV ds fglkc ls N lkS lkr lkS :i;s fdjk;k crkrk gwaA ekdsZV jsV ls esjk eryc gS fd tks ysrk gS vkSj ftl Hkko ls tkrk gS mls ekdsZV jsV dgrs gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSus fdlh O;fDRk dks bl Hkko ls u rks dHkh Hkw[k.M+ fdjk;s ij fn;k vkSj u gh dksbZ jkf’k tSu tks esjh iq= o/kw gS dks ykHk igqpkaus ds mnns’; ls >wBs c;ku ns jgk gwaA^^ 17. PW-1 Shailendra Singh was also examined by the learned trial court and he also supported the execution of the said sale deed Exhibit-1 by all the four family members of Takht Singh, and this Court also perused the said sale deed, in which Takhat Singh, Sheila Kumari and Lalit Singh, who had completed 18 years and 8 months of age at that time in the year 1966 had signed the said sale deed. As against this, the Exhibit-A-1A purported sale deed in favour of the defendant-Om Prakash is not signed by Lalit Singh or Himmat Singh, but the said Sheila Kumari, who from the statements of some witnesses appears to have relinquished the civil world and had taken Diksha and had become Sadhvi, only had purportedly signed the said sale deed, the signature and the contents of which could not be proved by the defendant, and on the other hand, various contradictions in his statement and cross-examination casts a serious doubt over the said document, namely, the sale deed in his favour. DW-3 Ashok Kumar in his cross-examination also stated that he knows Smt.Sheila Kumari since 1982-1983 and even in that period, she used to wear clothes of Sadhavi Hkxok diMs igurh Fkh . The said portion of the crossexamination of DW-3 Ashok Kumar is also quoted below for ready reference:- ^^-------eS ‘khyk dqekjh dks lu~ 1982&83 ls tkurk gwaA ‘khyk dqekjh ml oDr ‘kknh’kqnk Fkh ;k ugh eq>s irk ugh ml oDr og Hkxok diM+s igurh FkhA ‘khyk dqekjh dk edku dgka ij gS eq>s irk ughA--------------- 18. From the above evidence, read as a whole, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defendant was only in permissive possession of the plot No.27, Bheru Vilas near Sardar Club, Jodhpur and was not the owner of the plot No.27A, as claimed by him and the purported sale deed in his favour Exhibit-A-1A dated 05.10.1983 is a sham and fake document. The plaintiffs have proved their case about title and possession of the said plot No.27 since the year 1966 and despite revocation of the license or permission, the defendant failed to hand over back the possession of the plot in question to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the learned trial court was perfectly justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 19. The plaintiffs have proved their case about title and possession of the said plot No.27 since the year 1966 and despite revocation of the license or permission, the defendant failed to hand over back the possession of the plot in question to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the learned trial court was perfectly justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 19. Here this Court would also like to observe that the findings of the learned trial court on issue No.3 about the failure of the plaintiffs to prove the Affidavit of the defendant-Om Prakash dated 06.08.1985 are not sustainable. The father Shri Pukhraj PW-2 clearly stated before the court in his afore-extracted statement that the said Affidavit was signed by Om Prakash and was given by him in the previous Civil Suit No.313/1985 – Smt. Shashi Vs. Pukhraj filed by his daughter-in-law, which was ultimately decided in view of the compromise between the parties and this statement of Shri Pukhraj not having been rebutted and also in view of the fact that the affidavit duly sworn-in before the Oath Commissioner was filed before the competent civil court and was marked as Exhibit-3 by the Court, therefore, the learned trial court has fallen into error in holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the said Affidavit of the defendant, in which he clearly admitted that he was only living on plot No.27 as Chowkidar permitted by Shri Pukhraj. The findings on issue No.3 therefore, deserves to be reversed, and it is held that the Affidavit dated 06.08.1985 was very much given by the defendant-Om Prakash in a competent civil court admitting his capacity of permissive possession as a Chowkidar of the said plot No.27 and he cannot be permitted to resile from the same in the present suit subsequently, which was required to be filed by the plaintiffs upon its refusal to hand over the possession to them. 20. The judgments relied upon by Mr. R.R. Nagori, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant-Om Prakash are of little help to him in the facts of the present case, as none of these judgments relate to the construction of a registered sale deed and there is a strong presumption of correctness of the said sale deed registered way back in the year 1966. R.R. Nagori, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant-Om Prakash are of little help to him in the facts of the present case, as none of these judgments relate to the construction of a registered sale deed and there is a strong presumption of correctness of the said sale deed registered way back in the year 1966. The presumption of its correctness is also available as per Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as more than 30 years had lapsed before the trial court considered the said document, while passing the decree under appeal in the year 1999, and therefore, the court was entitled to rely upon the said documents Exhibit-1 sale deed and its contents also as proved. Moreover this Court is of the opinion that at the instance of a Caretaker or person in permissive possession, who sets up a false title in his own favour, the enquiry into the chain of title of the plaintiffs gone cannot be into, as if the plaintiffs themselves were claiming the declaration of their title. 21. On the other hand, if the defendant fails to establish any semblance his own title in the property, the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession. 22. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a very detailed and researching judgment in the case of Maria Margardia Sequeira Fernandes & ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria – (2012) 5 SCC 370 detailing the four types of possession under property law; Easements Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Specific Relief Act, 1963, dealing with a case of a well known and respected Christian family of Goa where the permissive & free of cost possession of suit premises was given by a sister to her brother as a caretaker, while the sister with her husband was out of Goa in relation to his service in Navy and which brother illegally denied her possession of her own house with title undisputed for 20 longs years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowing the sister’s appeal with costs of Rs.50,000/- and mesne profits of Rs.1 lac per month for the residential house, held in para 32 to 36 as under:- “Truth as guiding star in judicial process 32. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies. 33. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies. 33. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 34. In Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, this Court observed that in such a situation a question that arises for consideration is whether the presiding officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost or is there not any legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to take an active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions –whether discretionary or obligatory-according to law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done. 35. What people expect is that the Court should discharge its obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the existence of the courts of justice. 36. In Ritesh Tewari and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (2010) 10 SCC 677 this Court reproduced often quoted quotation which reads as under:- “.....Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest" ..........The quest of truth continues........, also in this case. 23. 36. In Ritesh Tewari and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (2010) 10 SCC 677 this Court reproduced often quoted quotation which reads as under:- “.....Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest" ..........The quest of truth continues........, also in this case. 23. Deprecating false claims and defences, which are considered really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever-escalating prices of the real estate, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in para 81 and 82 observed as under:- “False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever-escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in the Courts. The Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi case, (2011) 8 SCC 249 aptly observed that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. This problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate case would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.” 24. And then finally, allowing the sister’s appeal as aforesaid and laying down the principles of law in para 97 to 101, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “97. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as under:- 1. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. 2. Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. 2. Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand. 3. The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant. 4. The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour. 5. The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession. 98. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Trial Court deserve to be set aside and we accordingly do so. Consequently, this Court directs that the possession of the suit premises be handed over to the appellant, who is admittedly the owner of the suit property. 99. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the legal representatives of the respondent are granted three months time to vacate the suit premises. They are further directed that after the expiry of the three months period, the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property be handed over to the appellant. The usual undertaking to this effect be filed by the legal representatives of the respondent in this Court within two weeks. 100. The legal representatives of the respondent are also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) per month towards the use and occupation of the premises for a period of three months. The said amount for use and occupation be given to the appellant on or before the 10th of every month. In case the legal representatives of the respondent are not willing to pay the amount for use and occupation as directed by this Court, they must hand over the possession of the premises within two weeks from the date of this judgment. In case the legal representatives of the respondent are not willing to pay the amount for use and occupation as directed by this Court, they must hand over the possession of the premises within two weeks from the date of this judgment. Thereafter, if the legal representatives of the respondent do not hand over peaceful possession of the suit property, in that event, the appellant would be at liberty to get the possession of the premises by taking police help. 101. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant within four weeks. (We have imposed the moderate cost in view of the fact that the original respondent has expired). Ordered accordingly.” 25. Thus, the present appeal filed by the defendant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 26. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the defendant-Om Prakash is dismissed with costs, which is determined at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiffs-respondents. The defendant will also pay the arrears of mesne profits as claimed by the plaintiffs and directed by the learned trial court throughout this period and from now onwards @ Rs.5,000/- per month from the month of October, 2015, till he hands over the possession of the plot No.27 in question including the so-called Plot No.27A measuring 60'x45' to the plaintiffs within a period of six months from today. The trial court will draw the decree of possession and mesne profits accordingly immediately. If the defendant fails to hand over the possession and pay mesne profits or costs, as directed, the plaintiffs/respondents, besides seeking expeditious execution of the decree, shall be free to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Copy of this judgment may be sent to all the parties concerned and the trial court below forthwith.