Girdhari Lal vs Pratap Singh And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1887 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Appellant in this Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment dated 20th May, 2005 of the learned Addl. District Judge, whereby she decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for specific performance in respect of property measuring 125 sq. yds 28' x 40' out of Khasra No. 299 situated in Revenue Estate of Village Mukhmelpur, Delhi comprising the accommodation mentioned therein and as delineated in the site plan Exhibit PW 1/7. Appellant was further granted two months time to obtain No Objection Certificate to execute sale deed in favor of respondents/plaintiffs and then to restore possession of the suit property to the respondents/plaintiffs, failing which they they could get the sale deed executed through due process of law. The judgment is dated 20th May, 2005 while the appeal has been preferred on 30th August, 2007 entailing a delay of 742 days in filing of the appeal.

2. CM 12806/2007 is an application for condensation of delay on the ground that review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the court on 30th May, 2007. Application is totally bereft of material particulars. Appellant relies on the judgment of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharti Telenet Ltd v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 AIR Supreme Court Weekly 1755 in support of his plea for condoning the delay. The cited authority would not advance appellant's case inasmuch as availing of remedy of review would not operate as a bar on filing of appeal. Appellant orally submitted that review petition was filed on 16th July, 2005 which itself would be beyond the period permitted for seeking review.

3. Be that as it may, we have also heard the learned Counsel for appellant on merits in assailing the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that appellant has been a victim of fraud perpetrated by one Balbir Singh Rana who happens to be brother-in-law of Pratap Singh, respondent/plaintiff. In nut shell, it is the appellant's case that Balbir Singh Rana had obtained certain blank signed papers from the appellant on the pretext of securing a loan of Rs. 50,000/- for him. As per the appellant, loan was to be arranged and given by Balbir Singh Rana. It is contended that appellant in good faith had executed the blank documents where Balbir Singh Rana had served and made him drink wine.

4. Appellant contends that he had served a notice dated 21st November, 2001 to respondents wherein he had narrated the entire sequence of events as to how Balbir Singh Rana had procured the photographs of appellant for purposes of loan and got the blank papers signed from him after serving him liquor. Appellant further contended that on 11th November, 2001, respondents along with Balbir Singh Rana came to his house and forcibly demanded possession of the house and held out threats to him. Appellant claimed that General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will and receipt of Rs. 5 lacs were forged and fabricated and therefore, sought cancellation of the said GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will etc. Appellant also made allegation in the notice that respondents had called him 'Chamar' and thereby committed offence under the Untouchability Act. Appellant also claimed that Balbir Singh Rana had taken Rs. 1 lac for the purpose of securing appointment for his brother and the return of said amount was also sought.

5. Apart from alleging that Agreement to Sell, Will, GPA, Receipt were forged and fabricated, appellant claimed that he was not the owner of the property. Appellant further denied the factum of his presence before the Sub Registrar for registration of the said documents. He claimed that respondents 1 and 2 had not even seen the property in question. He urged that the Notary Public who had attested the receipt in question for Rs. 5 lacs did not support the appellant's version. There were discrepancies whether the sale consideration was paid in the office of the Sub Registrar or before the Notary Public. Besides the appellant had not purchased the stamp papers for the documents.

6. We have carefully perused the well reasoned and comprehensive judgment of the learned Addl. Distrit Judge. The learned Judge has noted the contentions, evidence led, analyzed and appreciated the same while giving her findings in issues as framed. The learned Trial Judge has duly noted that at the time of making payment to the appellant, Shri Mahender Singh and Balbir Singh Rana signed as a witnesses to the receipt and the entire sale consideration was paid in the office of the Sub Registrar. The receipt had been duly notarized. Appellant had executed the Will which was got registered with the Sub Registrar with the photographs of the appellant as Exhibit PW 1/2. Apart from Shri Mahender Singh, it had been attested by an Advocate Mr.A.K.Saxena. General Power of Attorney was also duly registered as Exhibit PW 1/3 which included his thumb impressions, signatures and photographs with the endorsement of the Sub Registrar. Similarly, Agreement to Sell was duly registered. Possession letter was also executed. Evidence has been led regarding regarding appearance of appellant for execution and registration of the documents. As against this, appellant had deposed that he did not execute the documents Exhibit PW 1/1 to PW 1/6 and that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers along with his photographs for preparing loan documents. Appellant submitted that fraud was played on him on 19th August, 2001.

7. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Trial Court holding the appellant's version as not credible. Appellant himself is a post graduate and a school teacher. It is inconceivable that he would append his signatures on blank papers for the purposes of getting loan and given his photographs on 19th August, 2001. Further, no complaint or protest about the same was lodged even when no loan was granted. It is significant that appellant did not lodge any report with regard to the alleged fraud played on his signatures having been obtained on blank papers. It is only when the respondents allegedly threatened to dispossess the appellant from the house in November, 2001 that a legal notice was served on the respondents. In the said notice, while the appellant claimed Agreement to Sell, GPA to be forged and fabricated, he did not specifically state that he had not appeared before the Sub Registrar. Rather apart from the theory of loan for which he is claimed to have executed blank documents, it is claimed that appellant had given Rs. 1 lac to Balbir Singh Rana for securing appointment of his brother and he wanted return of the said money.

8. We further find that the trial court has rightly held that Lal Dora Certificate has been issued in the name of appellant but the appellant has failed to lead any evidence to show that property in question belonged to the HUF. It is also significant that while in the written statement, he had taken the plea that he himself has given five photographs to Balbir Singh Rana. However, in response to the trial court question, he pleaded his ignorance as to how photographs reached Balbir Singh Rana. Similarly admission by appellant's son that even on coming to know that signatures of the appellant had been obtained on blank papers, no complaint was lodged either by the appellant to the police and to the court either on 15th August, 2001 or on 19th August, 2001 is significant. Moreover, it was revealed in the cross examination that appellant had taken a loan of Rs. 2 lac for investing in the business of his son and at that time, Balbir Singh Rana did not asked him to sign any documents but simply taken his signature in his diary. Hence this would make the appellant's version of signatures on blank documents incredible, considering their past dealings.

9. We find that trial court has rightly rejected and disbelieved appellant's version that he did not go to the office of Sub Registrar for execution of the documents noting that respondents, attesting witnesses, Advocate at the office of the Sub Registrar had deposed regarding execution of the documents in their presence and affixation of appellant's signatures and thumb impressions. They were subjected to lengthly cross examination but they remained steadfast in their testimony. There is no animosity alleged against any of the witnesses.

We are of the view that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the appellant's version based on the evidence as recorded. The appellant's plea do not inspire any confidence. We find no infirmity or error in the judgment requiring interference in appeal. This apart, appeal is also barred by limitation with the appellant having failed to make out any sufficient cause for condensation of delay. Appeal even otherwise is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Accordingly, CM 12806/2007 and CM 12805/2007 also stands dismissed.