Devender Kumar Bhardwaj vs Yogesh Chander Bhardwaj & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 1504 Del

19
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CS(OS) 584/2013 & I.As. 5158-5161/2013

       DEVENDER KUMAR BHARDWAJ                    ..... Plaintiff
                   Through: Ms. Jahanvi Worah, Advocate.

                           versus

       YOGESH CHANDER BHARDWAJ & ORS                          ..... Defendants
                    Through None

%                                   Date of Decision: 2nd April, 2013

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                               JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present suit has been filed for partition, declaration and permanent injunction.

2. By virtue of the present suit, plaintiff has sought a declaration that the Relinquishment Deed dated 15th October, 2007 be declared null and void.

3. The only averment on the basis of which annulment of the aforesaid Relinquishment Deed is sought is in para 5 of the plaint which reads as under:-

"5. That in terms of the family settlement, the defendant no.1 arranged for the execution of relinquishment deeds in respect of the suit property whereby the defendants 2-4 would execute relinquishment deeds in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. On 15.10.2007 the defendant no.1 got the defendants 2-4 to execute a registered document that he explained was a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 in respect of the suit property. The defendant no.1 also made the

plaintiff sign on the said document but did not explain as to why he was required to do so. However, the plaintiff believing the representations of the defendant no.1 to be true and also for the reason that his sisters were also executing the same affixed his signatures on the same. Copy of the deed executed by the parties was retained only by the defendant no.1."

4. It is pertinent to mention that it is nowhere averred in the plaint that plaintiff is illiterate.

5. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid Relinquishment Deed is a registered document and in law everyone is presumed to have signed a document after reading the same. There are no particulars of any fraud mentioned in the plaint other than what is stated in para 5 of the plaint.

6. Further, Sections 92 and 91 of the Evidence Act exclude evidence of an oral agreement contrary to the terms of a written contract.

7. This Court is also of the view that if written registered documents are denied only on the basis that plaintiff has signed the document in trust, it would create chaos in the society and there would be no sanctity attached to written registered documents.

8. In the opinion of this Court, since admittedly family disputes had arisen between the parties much prior to the impugned Relinquishment Deed, this Court would have to presume that all the parties would have signed a legal document after much thought and persuasion. The averments in para 5 of the plaint are contrary to human conduct and cannot be accepted by any prudent person.

9. Consequently, present suit and applications are dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J APRIL 02, 2013 js