IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA

RFA NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants

VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents

INDEX
Sr. PARTICULARS PAGES
No.

1. Memo of parties

2. List of dates and events

3. Regular First Appeal against the impugned order

Dated 05.12.19 in CS /610/2016 in case No. 266 of
2016 passed by the Ld. Court of Sh. Pracheta Singh,
CJ(JD), Palwal.
ANNEXURE-P-1: Certified copy of the impugned
4.
order Dated 05.12.19 in CS /610/2016 in case No.
266 of 2016.
ANNEXURE-P-2: Copy of the fraudulently created
5.
agreement to Sell on 10 Rupees Non-judicial Stamp
Paper, purchased by Appellant for receiving
compensation for loss to crops by hailstones.
Application for the stay of execution of the
6.
decree/order dated Dated 05.12.19 in CS /610/2016
in case No. 266 of 2016. alongwith supporting
affidavit.
Application for summoning the Trial Court Record in
7.
CS /610/2016 in case No. 266 of 2016 decided on
dt. 05.12.19 by Sh. Pracheta Singh, CJ(JD), Palwal
ANNEXURE-P-3 (Colly):
8.
Photocopy of I.D. Proofs of appellants.
 E-Court Fee
12.

13. Vakalatnama.

APPELLANT No.1

APPELLANT No.2 (i)

APPELLANT No.2 (ii)

APPELLANT No.2 (iii)

APPELLANT No.2 (iv)

APPELLANT No.2 (v)

THROUGH

Advocate for the APPELLANTS

Palwal Enrl. No. …………
Dated: .01.2020 Mob.
Email:……………….

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA

RFA NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
 VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. Smt. Hem Lata D/o Late Sh. Shiv Dutt and wife of Sh.
Dheeraj Sharma, R/o Village Tikri Brahman, Tehsil &
Distt. Palwal, now presently residing at Village Kanchan
Pur, District Dholpur (Rajasthan)

2. Somoti since deceased through her LRs:

(i) Smt. Hemlata D/o Late Smt. Somoti
(ii) Smt. Bharti D/o Late Smt. Somoti, wife of Sh.
Ashok, R/o Vill. Bada Gaon Tasimo, Tehsil Haipau,
Distt. Dholpur, Rajasthan.
(iii) Smt. Kamla D/o Late Smt. Somoti, W/o Sh. Bankey
Bihari Sharma, R/o H.No. A-573, Rajeev Gali, Giri
Marg, Mandawali Fajalpur, Delhi.
(iv) Smt. Dayavati D/o Late Smt. Somoti, W/o Sh.
Kailash Chand, R/o Keshav Nagar, Village Doli Ka
Vas, Ramgarh, District Alwar.
(v) Sh. Pramod Kumar S/o Late Smt. Somoti, Son of
Shiv Dutt, R/o Vill. Tikri Brahman, Tehsil &
District, Palwal, Haryana
- - - - APPELLANTS
Versus

1. Sh. Bijender Singh S/o Sh. Dhara Singh Thakur, R/o

H.No. 4, Civil Lines, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwa.
2. Sh. Deen Mohmad S/o Sh. Issa, R/o Village Tikri
Brahman, Tehsil & Distt. Palwal
3. Sh. Ravidutt, Ex. Sarpanch, S/o Mange Ram R/o
Village Tikri Brahman, Tehsil & Distt. Palwal
4. Sh. Harish S/o Late Smt. Somoti & Late Sh.Shiv Dutt,
 R/o Village Tikri Brahman, Tehsil & Distt. Palwal

- - - - RESPONDENTS

APPELLANT No.1

APPELLANT No.2 (i)

APPELLANT No.2 (ii)

APPELLANT No.2 (iii)

APPELLANT No.2 (iv)

APPELLANT No.2 (v)

THROUGH

Advocate for the APPELLANTS

Palwal Enrl. No. …………
Dated: .01.2020 Mob.
Email:……………….

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA

RFA NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
 VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES & SYNOPSIS

As the story of the present case unravels, we have on the
first scene Bijender Singh Thakur of
Village Tikri Brahman, who plays
the Villain of the Case story
(Respondent No.1). Like in old Hindi
Films, this Thakur is mastermind
and kingpin who is always ready to
usurp the property of others by
fraudulent means and by way of
conspiracies. Like vulture his eyes
are always on to grab the properties
of others, especially poor and
weakers. This villain has in his
team Respondents No. 2 & 3 who
always are there to act as conduits
at his back and call.

That one Brahmin of the village Shiv Dutt S/o Sh. Natthi
died young, leaving behind him his
wife Smt. Somoti and his four
daughters Apellants 2 (i) to 2 (iv)
and two Sons Sh. Pramod and
Harish. Sh. Nathhi considering his
old age decided that out of total
approx. 12 Acres of land purchased
by him, he bequeathed Approx. 5
acre to his Grandson Pramod,
Approx 5 Acres to another grandson
Harish and rest 2 Acres to
remaining 5 LRs of his diseased son
 Shiv Dutt, including Smt. Somoti
W/o Late Shiv Dutt and 4 daughters
of Shiv Dutt (Appellant A2 (i) to A2
(iv). These 4 daughters of Shiv Dutt
were got married and went to the
house of their in-laws. Now this 2
acre land was tilled and ploughed by
their brothers.
That this villain mind Thakur Bijender Singh
(Respondent No.1) had his evil eyes
on the land of the family of the
appellants from the very beginning
and accordingly, he lured the
brothers one by one, and the
younger son Harish came in his
booby trap and due to the
manipulations and conspiracies of
Thakur Bijender Singh, Harish S/o
Shiv Dutt sold out almost entire 5
acre of land of his share to the
Thakur Bijender Singh or his
conmen, including Ex-Sarpanch
Ravi Dutt, Deen Mohammed, etc.

01.07.2015: That as part of his conspiracy,

Thakur Bijender Singh in the year
2015 told Mr. Harish to call his
sister for getting the govt. relief for
the loss to crops by hailstorms. He
used Ex- Sarpanch Ravi Dutt for the
purpose, whom Hem Lata knew
well. Hemlata came and signed as
directed by her brother Harish and
 later received a cheque no. 063806
of Rs. 1081/- of the HDFC Bank,
Branch Agra Chowk, G.T. Road,
Palwal, dated 01.07.2015, from the
office of SDO Civil, Palwal. This was
a bait by the key conspirator Thakur
Bijender Singh to lure the sister of
Harish on a future date on the
similar pretext.

That when Harish S/o Shiv Dutt was bereft of almost all
agricultural land in his share and
his daughter was of marriageable
age he went to the same Takur
Bijender Singh for his help. As per
conspiracy of Thakur Bijender
Singh, Harish repeatedly called on
mobile to his sister Hem Lata in the
month of April 2016. Finally, Hem
Lata came to look after the wedding
preparations of her niece and see
her mother and brother on
16.04.2016. That as per plan Ex-
Sarpach Ravi Dutt came to the
house of Smt. Somoti and told her
that he can help them get the
amount of relief announced by govt.
for the loss to crops by Hailstorms
and she would get around 3
thousand rupees. He also told her
that if Hem Lata also applies she
would also get the same around 3
thousand rupees. The old illiterate
 lady trusted the words of Ex-
sarpanch Ravi Dutt and her own
son Mr. Harish, Somovti agreed, and
she also asked Hem Lata to
accompany her as she wanted that
the money could be used in the
marriage of her granddaughter fixed
for 28.04.2016.

20.04.2016: That Respondent No. 4 Mr. Harish

was in urgent need of money for the
marriage of his daughter, and
Respondent No. 1 Thakur Bijender
Singh used his maverick skill and
used Respondent No. 2 & 3. Neither
the appellant was acquainted with
the Court and where to go, nor the
late mother of appellant No. 1 Smt.
Somoti knew about any plan of the
respondents. As per plan all papers
were got purchased by Ex-Sarpanch
Ravi Dutt and Harish. They told that
the papers were required for the
paisa/relief of previous loss to crops
by hailstroms, to be paid to them.
Trusting Ex-sarpanch Ravi Dutt as
an old acquaintance including
Harish as being her own real son,
illiterate old lady Smt. Somoti and
her daughter did as directed, for
getting the hailstorms damage to
crops, compensation amount.
Neither Hem Lata, nor her mother
 got a single penny from Sh. Ravi
Dutt (Ex-Sarpanch) who was
present there. Thakur Bijender
Singh was not present there, and
nor did he make any payment to the
the mother–daughter duo at any
time.
09.06.2016: The mother of Hem Lata, Smt.
Somoti came to know that cheating
had been done with them and in the
name of helping them get
compensation of hailstorms loss to
crops, and they came to know that
Respondents No.1 to 4 were hand in
gloves with each other, in hatching
and executing the conspiracy to
usurp the agricultural land of the
appellants.
11.07.2016: Appellant complained to the police
and when no appropriate action was
taken by police, citing it a civil
mater, the appellant herein move
the court and filed SUIT/ISTGASA
UNDER SECTION 156 (3) CRPC,
U/s 420/467/471/120B/506 IPC.
It was registered as suit no.
161/2016 in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate Palwal. The
matter was fixed for Preliminary
Evidence of complainant Hem Lata,
on NDOH 13.07.2016. This case is
going on…
13.07.2016: The matter in suit no. 161/2016
before CJM was adjourned for
30.08.2016.
20.08.2016: Appellant herein Smt. HEM LATA
along with her mother Smt. Somoti
filed CS No. 610/2016, CIVIL
SUIT FOR DECLARATION,
PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION, and the present
appeal is arising out of the final
order of dismissal, in this case.

06.09.2016: In utter shock given by the fraud

and cheating done by Respondent
No. 1 to 4, and the harassment of
litigation and when no action was
taken by police and no justice was
given by the court, the mother of
Hem Lata, Smt. Somoti died on
06.09.2016. The Respondents are
liable to be punished for the killing
of the mother of Appellant No.1 by
giving her harassment and utter
shock by cheating and breach of
trust, and criminal conspiracy of
forging false and fabricated
documents of alleged agreement to
sale of her agricultural land, which
she never knew, nor executed, nor
received a single penny as
consideration amount. In the list of
LRs of Late Smt. SOMOTI, Appellant
No.2 herein, the name of her
 younger son (Harish) is not included
because he was responsible for
untimely death of his mother by
involving in the entire conspiracy
with other Respondents No. 1 to 3
and even did not file reply in Court
to help Respondent 1 to 3.

15.09.2016: Two parallel counter-suits were filed

by the Respondent No.1 herein
(Thakur Bijender Singh) against
Smt. Hem Lata (appellant No.1
herein) for the two separate
agreement to sell, which CIVIL
SUITS FOR POSSESSION BY WAY
OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
CONTRACT have culminated in
CS/681/2016 AND Civil Suit No.
CS/682/2016. The final order in
CS/681/2016 was passed by the
Ld. Court of Sh. Pracheta Singh,
CJ(JD), Palwal on 05.12.2019. A
separate appeal is being filed
against the said order dated
05.12.2019.

17.09.2016: Respondent no.4 was proceeded ex-

parte vide order dated 17.09.2016.
He did not file any written
statement. Later on also he did not
take steps to set aside the ex-parte
order against him.
 05.12.2019: Final Order passed in civil suit no
CS/610/2016, in case No. 266 of
2016 passed by the Ld. Court of Sh.
Pracheta Singh, CJ(JD), Palwal,
thereby dismissing the SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION. The
appellant herein is aggrieved by the
said order as it being improper and
not in accordance with law.

…. January 2020: Hence this appeal.

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA

RFA NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED

ORDER DATED 05.12.19 IN CS /610/2016 IN CASE NO.
266 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE LD. COURT OF SH.
PRACHETA SINGH, CJ(JD), PALWAL

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. The APPELLANTS are the law abiding citizen of the

country and are entitled to invoke the appellate

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

Brief Facts:

3. That the appellants are co-owners in joint possession of

the suit land. That in the month of April 2016

Respondent No. 4 Mr. Harish was in urgent need of

money for the marriage of his daughter, and Respondent

No. 1 Thakur Bijender Singh used his maverick skill and

used Respondent No. 2 & 3. Neither the appellant was

acquainted with the Court and where to go, nor the late

mother of appellant No. 1 Smt. Somoti knew about any

plan of the respondents. As per plan all papers were got

purchased by Ex-Sarpanch Ravi Dutt and Harish. They

told that the papers were required for the paisa/relief of

previous loss to crops by hailstroms, to be paid to them.

Trusting Ex-sarpanch Ravi Dutt as an old acquaintance

including Harish as being her own real son, illiterate old

lady Smt. Somoti and her daughter did as directed, for

 getting the hailstorms damage to crops, compensation

amount. Neither Hem Lata, nor her mother got a single

penny from Sh. Ravi Dutt (Ex-Sarpanch) who was

present there. Thakur Bijender Singh was not present

there, and nor did he make any payment to the the

mother –daughter duo at any time.

4. That the aforesaid fraud and conspiracy of the

Respondents no. 1 to 4 is more than clear from the facts

that Respondent No.4 (Harish) real brother of the

Appellant No.1 came to village Tikri Brahman on

16.04.16 to see Appellant No.1 and her late mother Smt.

Somoti. On 20.04.2016, in the presence of Ghanshyam

and Chander Dutt, residents of the same village Tikri

Brahman, Respondent No.4 Harish, along with

Respondent No.3 (Ravi Dutt Ex-sarpanch), and

Respondent No.2 Deen Mohammad, both of same village,

told Smt. Somoti and to Hemlata Appellant No.1 herein,

that compensation for damage to crops due to hailstroms

for the year 2015 has to be given to them by Tehsil

Palwal. On this pretext, respondents No.2 to 4 took the

Appellant No.1 and her late mother Somoti to Tehsil

Palwal for release of said compensation on 20.04.2016

and asked the appellant No.1 and her mother to

purchase stamp papers, which they actually did not

know from where to purchase, so Ex-Sarpanch Ravi Dutt

did all that and also obtained their photographs on the

pretext that these documents would be deposited in the

Tehsil Office after getting application for compensation

prepared thereof. The Appellant no.1 and her late

mother, out of full faith upon Respondent No.2 to 4,

complied and gave signatures and thumb impression on

those stamp papers and some other blank papers.

However, the appellants did not receive any sort of

compensation from Tehsil for which they requested the

Respondents to look into the matter, who ignored the

appellants. On 09.06.2016 Respondent No. 2 and 3

visited the Appellants and asked them for execution and

registration and sale deed regarding suit land in their

favour. Which surprised the appellants. Respondent No.

2 & 3 showed 2 separate two agreements to sell dated

20.04.2016 to the appellants and threatened them with

false litigation. The appellants then realized that these

agreements were prepared on the aforesaid blank stamp

papers and pages which were obtained from them by

Respondent No. 2 to 4 on the pretext of compensation.

The appellants requested Respondents No. 2 to 4 to

return the said papers to the appellants as they were

fraudulent and forged, but to no avail. Rather, the

Respondent No. 2 to 4 pressurized the appellants and

gave them death threats for execution of sale deed. As

 such, both the agreements are fraudulent, illegal and

liable to be set aside, which were never intended to be

executed by the appellants. The possession of the suit

lands were never given to Respondent No.1 by the

appellants, who still have the possession. No sale

consideration was received by the appellants from

Respondent No.1 (Thakur Bijender Singh). The

respondents are bent upon preparing more false and

forged documents on those blank signed papers of

appellants to grab the suit lands.

3. That on date 09.06.2016, when Respondent No. 2 & 3

visited the house of mother of Hem Lata, Smt. Somoti

came to know that cheating had been done with them

and in the name of helping them get compensation of

hailstorms loss to crops, and they came to know that

Respondents No.1 to 4 were hand in gloves with each

other, in hatching and executing the conspiracy to usurp

the agricultural land of the appellants.

5. That thereafter the appellants herein filed complaints to

police and also filed Istgasa u/s 156 (3) CrPC, and also

Civil Suit for Declaration and Permanent and Mandatory

Injunction. The details of which as already mentioned

above in the Synopsis and list of dates and events are not
 being repeated herein. Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Pracheta

Singh, CJ (JD) Palwal dismissed the Civil Suit

CS/610/2016 vide order dated 05.12.2019, which order

is being impugned by way of present appeal.

6. That gross miscarriage of justice has been done by Ld.

Trial Court while carrying out its findings on the issues

no.1 to 3 and again on issue no.10. Instead of passing a

reasoned and lawful and speaking order, at one go Ld.

Trail Court mentioned that Issue No. 1 to 3 are decided

against the Planitiffs ( Appellants herein). Further, again

issue no. 4 to 9 OPD (i.e., the onus to prove in all of them

was on defendants) were decided against the defendants

(the respondents herein). Finally, issue no.10 was

decided in utter disregard to the set law, and only on the

basis of conjecture, surmise and probability.

7. That the impugned order is unjust, unlawful and

patently wrong and contrary to law and there is

completely non- application of mind by the Ld. Trail

Court, and hence liable to be set aside in view of the

following grounds amongst others:

GROUNDS

A. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to apply the law

as applicable in the present case and hence the

 impugned order is liable to be set aside, and

appellant is entitled to the relief of injunction and

declaration.

B. Because the impugned order has been passed on

the basis of conjectures and surmises and hence

liable to be set aside.

C. Because Respondents No. 2 & 3 acted at the behest

of Respondent No.1 and 4 and in the name of help

in getting compensation amount of loss to crops by

hailstorms, from the Government, they trapped the

illiterate Smt. Somoti (the mother of appellant) and

got her thumb impression on paper, and also the

signatures of Appellant no.1 on papers, which was a

fraud played on the mother-daughter duo. As soon

as the fraud came to the knowledge of mother of

appellant No.1 and appellant No.1, they

immediately made complaints to the police and filed

suit in the court. It is most humbly submitted that

the alleged agreements to sell are void contracts, as

free consent of the Appellant No.1 and her late

mother was never there. Being void and unlawful,

these two alleged agreements to sell are not

inforceable in law.

D. Because the Ld. Trail Court committed patent error

by holding in Para No. 23 on Page 20 of the

impugned order that “It is worth considering that a

bare perusal of the copy of one of the impugned

agreements dated 20.04.2016 clearly shows that the

signatures and thumb marks of the parties and

witnesses of that agreement are appropriately place

at the designated pints. As such, the plaintiff’s

allegation of signing/thumb marking the blank

stamp papers and pages seems weak.”…….. and in

Para No. 24……… (last line)… … “execution of

agreements dated 20.04.2016 seems highly

probable.”

(i) That the above finding of the Ld. Trial

Court on the basis of probability theory is

quite unjust improper and contrary to set

law of the land and hence liable to be

struck down in view of the following:

(ii) That Ld. Trial Court should have applied

the law of the land on the basis of facts

and not the theory of Probability while

passing the impugned order.

(iii) That the version of appellants is truth and

fact that they had gone to Tehsil on

assurance of Respondents No. 2 & Sh.

Deen Mohammad & Sh. Ravi Dutt Ex-

Sarpanch, for signing documents for

 getting compensation of Hailstroms loss to

their crops.

(iv) That there was a reason to believe in Ex-

Sarpanch by Appellant No.1, because

earlier also the appellant No.1 had received

compensation amount for damage to crops

by Hailstroms and received a cheque no.

063806 of Rs. 1081/- of HDFC Bank,

Branch Agra Chowk, G.T. Road, Palwal,

dated 01.07.2015, from the office of SDO

Civil, Palwal.

(v) That there was never any lawful division of

the joint property before any competent

authority, It is worth mentioning here that

for partition of agricultural land holding

SDM/Revenue Assistant concerned having

jurisdiction is the competent authority. No

partition of joint family holding was ever

done as such Appellant No.1 (Hemlata)

and her mother were not the only absolute

owners of their undivided share and hence

incompetent to enter into contract, and

hence these alleged agreements to sell

without the consent of other co-sharers

was void ab-initio.

E. BECAUSE the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

the fact that both the alleged Agreements to Sell,

leading to the Cases between the parties, are

improper and hence not enforceable in law, in view

of the fact that both were purchased by Smt. Hem

Lata. Whereas it is always the buyer who pays for

the stamp papers and purchases stamp paper in his

name.

F. BECAUSE the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

that in both the alleged Agreements to Sell, only

Photographs of Sellers Smt. Somoti and her dauther

Smt. Hemlata are there.

G. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

that PHOTOGRAPH of buyer is not there on any

of the 2 separate AGREEMENT TO SELL.

Whereas photographs of both the buyer and seller

must be there, duly stamped by the notary, so that

it may not be altered in future.

H. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that

on the backside of Stamp Paper both are purchased

in the name of HemLata only. There is no mention

of name of Smt. Somoti w/o Shiv Dutt on the back

side of any of the 2 stamp papers of 10 rupees each.

I. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate

that there are no signatures of buyer

 (Respondent No.1 or his witnesses (Respondent

No.2 &3) on First Page of each of the 2 alleged

Agreement to Sell.

J. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that

when the 2 Sellers (Hem Lata & Somoti) were co-

owners were same and the buyer was same

Respondent No.1 then why two separate alleged

Agreement to Sell were got made and two separate

receipts of Three Lakh and Two Lakh Rupees of the

same date 20.04.2016 were prepared? Ld. Trial

Court failed to appreciate that transaction of two

separate Khasra Nos. could be mentioned in one

agreement and the details of payment against each

could be shown by one receipt only, then why the

two separate receipts on same date 20.04.2016?

K. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that

as per Section 17 of Indian Registration Act,

1908, any agreement to sell above the amount of

Rupees 100/- need to be registered with the sub-

registrar concerned. Ld. Trial Court further failed to

appreciate that here the buyer did not care to go to

the office of the sub-registrar to get his agreement to

sell registered.
L. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that

in every agreement to sell of any immovable

property contains its location and description with

its length and breadth, and also mention of names

of its neighbors in its sides and also the size of the

road, depicted by a proper site plan, as prescribed

in Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC. Here in both the alleged

fraudulent agreement to Sell, there is neither any

site plan mentioned, nor the names of neighbors or

who are in north, or who are in south or East and

West side of the property for which the agreement to

sell is being signed has been mentioned. Hence the

alleged agreement to sell is void.

M. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that

there is no mention as to how many Rupees were

paid to Smt. Hem Lata ( Appellant No.1) and how

many rupees were paid to her mother late Smt.

Somoti.

N. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that

there is no mention of PAN NO. of the Buyer

(Respondent No.1) in both the 2 separate Agreement

to Sell. Neither AAdhar Number of the Buyer nor

 the 2 Sellers, nor the AAdhar Number or DL

number of any of the two witnesses has been

mentioned on any of the 2 alleged Agreements to

Sell. Hence, the suppression of PAN NO. and

AADHAR Number of the buyer from the alleged

agreement to Sell makes it doubtful and not

enforceable in law as both the agreements to sell

have not been prepared and executed as per law

before competent sub-registrar concerned by paying

relevant Stamp Duty to Collector of Stamps

concerned.

O. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it

is set law that for making payment above Rupees

Twenty Thousand only, the payment must be made

by Cheque or DD. Why did not the Respondent No.1

made payment by Cheque? Because actually not a

single penny was paid to the appellants.

P. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it

is duty of every Indian Citizen to abide by the laws

of the land, including Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.

Ld. Trial Court did not sought the Income Tax

Returns of the alleged buyer Respondent No. 1

(Bijender Singh) for the year 2015-16, 2016-17 and

2017-18, so that it may be ascertained whether any

 black money is not used or it is not a sham

transaction.

Q. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that

the wording inside the alleged agreement to sell is

not that are required for it to be a valid contract.

For a valid contract there is special mention of who

is the First Party (Vendor) or Parties of the First Part

(Vendors) and who is the Second Party (Vendee).

R. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that

there was no proof of any bank loan as alleged in

any of the alleged agreement to sell. There is no

mention of which bank’s loan and how much loan.

Further, when the buyer( Respondent No.1) knew

that there is loan pending against the immovable

property, then the property was not free from

encumbrance and therefore the Respondent no.1

was in proven fault that he fully knew well that

these two separately located properties are

mortgaged in Bank, then why did he made payment

of Two Lakh + Three Lakh = 5 Lakh on dated

20.04.2016. As per Indian Contract Act in this

situation also the Contract was void ab-initio.

Hence not enforceable. Hence the impugned order is

liable to be set aside.

 S. BECAUSE Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that

while as per the alleged agreement, bank loan was

due against the suit land. The Doctrine of Lis Pendis

applied and the alleged transaction was barred by

Section 50 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

8. That the appellant craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court

to cite relevant law, case laws, including judgments of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian and Various High

Courts, in support of grounds and averments made in

the present appeal, at the time of arguments.

9. That the two separate suit properties mentioned in two

separate agreements to sell are owned by and are in

possession of the Appellants. Hence they are very much

entitled to the Relief of Declaration, Permanent and

Mandatory injunction against the Respondents.

10. That the appeal has been filed within the period of

limitation.

11. That the appellants have filed separate application

alongwith this appeal with prayers to this Hon’ble Court

seeking stay on the operation of the impugned judgment

till this appeal is finally decided/adjudicated by this

Hon’ble Court.
12. That the appellants have also filed separate application

for summoning the Ld. Trial Court’s record for the just

and proper adjudication of the present appeal.

13. That the appellants have not filed any other similar

petition earlier on the same subject matter either in this

Hon'ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may kindly be pleased to;

a) Set aside the impugned order/judgment dated

05.12.2019 passed by Ld. CJ (JD) Palwal in
CS/610/2016.

b) Pass any other further order(s) which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper, in the interest of Justice.

APPELLANT No.1

APPELLANT No.2 (i)

APPELLANT No.2 (ii)

APPELLANT No.2 (iii)

APPELLANT No.2 (iv)

APPELLANT No.2 (v)

 THROUGH

Advocate for the APPELLANTS

Palwal
Dated: ….. January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA
RFA NO. OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT

I, Hem Lata D/o Late Sh. Shiv Dutt and wife of Sh. Dheeraj
Sharma, Age ….., R/o Village Tikri Brahman, Tehsil & Distt.
Palwal, now presently residing at Village Kanchan Pur, District
Dholpur (Rajasthan), today at Palwal, do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the APPELLANT no. 1 in the above noted case
and am well conversant with the facts of the case and
competent to depose to the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Regular First Appeal, for setting
aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CJ (JD) Palwal
in CS/610/2016 dated 05.12.2019, has been drafted by
my counsel on my instructions and the contents of the
appeal and Grounds thereto have been read over to me in
my vernacular, and the same are true and correct, and
not being repeated herein, for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Palwal on this day of January 2020, that
the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA
RFA NO. OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT

I, Bharti D/o Late Smt. Somoti, wife of Sh. Ashok, Age………

R/o Vill. Bada Gaon Tasimo, Tehsil Haipau, Distt. Dholpur,
(Rajasthan), today at Palwal, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-
1. That I am the Appellant no. 2 (ii) in the above noted case
and am well conversant with the facts of the case and
competent to depose to the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Regular First Appeal, for setting
aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CJ (JD) Palwal
in CS/610/2016 dated 05.12.2019, has been drafted by
my counsel on my instructions and the contents of the
appeal and Grounds thereto have been read over to me in
my vernacular, and the same are true and correct, and
not being repeated herein, for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Palwal on this day of January 2020, that
the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA
RFA NO. OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT

I, Smt. Kamla D/o Late Smt. Somoti, W/o Sh. Bankey Bihari
Sharma, Age…, R/o H.No. A-573, Rajeev Gali, Giri Marg,
Mandawali Fajalpur, Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-
1. That I am the Appellant no. 2 (iii) in the above noted case
and am well conversant with the facts of the case and
competent to depose to the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Regular First Appeal, for setting
aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CJ (JD) Palwal
in CS/610/2016 dated 05.12.2019, has been drafted by
my counsel on my instructions and the contents of the
appeal and Grounds thereto have been read over to me in
my vernacular, and the same are true and correct, and
not being repeated herein, for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Palwal on this day of January 2020, that
the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA
RFA NO. OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Smt. Dayavati D/o Late Smt. Somoti, W/o Sh. Kailash
Chand, Age….., R/o Keshav Nagar, Village Doli Ka Vas,
Ramgarh, District Alwar, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-

1. That I am the Appellant no. 2 (iv) in the above noted case

and am well conversant with the facts of the case and
competent to depose to the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Regular First Appeal, for setting
aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CJ (JD) Palwal
in CS/610/2016 dated 05.12.2019, has been drafted by
my counsel on my instructions and the contents of the
appeal and Grounds thereto have been read over to me in
my vernacular, and the same are true and correct, and
not being repeated herein, for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Palwal on this day of January 2020, that
the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA

RFA NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents

APPLICATION FOR THE STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE

DECREE/ORDER DATED DATED 05.12.19 IN CS
/610/2016 IN CASE NO. 266 OF 2016. ALONGWITH
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the Appellants herein have filed the accompanying

Regular First Appeal against the impugned order dated

05.12.2019, the contents whereof be also read as part

and parcel of this application as the same are not being

repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

2. That the operation of the impugned order is liable to be

stayed as the appellants herein will suffer huge

irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in term

of rupees, if the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial

Court of CJ( JD) Palwal is not stayed, till this appeal is

finally adjudicated by this Hon’ble Appellate Court.

 3. That this application is bona-fide and is being filed in

the interest of justice and hence is liable to be allowed

by this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER:

It is therefore most humbly prayed to this Hon’ble Court to

order stay on the operation of the impugned order/judgment

passed by Ld. Trial Court of CJ(JD) Palwal, on dated

05.12.2019 in CS/610/2016, till the final disposal of this

appeal by this Hon’ble court in the interest of justice.

APPELLANTS

THROUGH

Advocate for the APPELLANTS

Palwal Enrl. No. …………
Dated: .01.2020 Mob.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA
RFA NO. OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT

I, Hem Lata D/o Late Sh. Shiv Dutt and wife of Sh. Dheeraj
Sharma, Age ….., R/o Village Tikri Brahman, Tehsil & Distt.
Palwal, now presently residing at Village Kanchan Pur, District
Dholpur (Rajasthan), today at Palwal, do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the Appellant no. 1 in the above noted case
and am well conversant with the facts of the case and
competent to depose to the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying application for stay on the
operation of the impugned order/judgement has been
drafted by my counsel on my instructions, and has been
read over to me in my vernacular, and the same are true
and correct, to the best of my knowledge and legal advice
received.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Palwal on this day of January 2020, that
the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA

RFA NO. OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents

APPLICATION FOR SUMMONING THE TRIAL COURT

RECORD FOR THE JUST AND PROPER DISPOSAL OF
APPEAL AGAINST THE DECREE/ORDER DATED DATED
05.12.19 IN CS /610/2016 IN CASE NO. 266 OF 2016.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the Appellants herein have filed the accompanying

Regular First Appeal against the impugned order dated

05.12.2019, the contents whereof be also read as part

and parcel of this application as the same are not being

repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

2. That for the just and proper adjudication of this appeal

it is most urgent that the Trial Court record is utmost

necessary. Therefore in the interest of justice, record in

abovesaid case No. CS/610/2016 by Ld. Trial Court of

CJ( JD) Palwal is liable to be called by this Hon’ble

Appellate Court.
 3. That this application is bona-fide and is being filed in

the interest of justice and hence is liable to be allowed

by this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER:

It is therefore most humbly prayed to this Hon’ble Court to

summon record file leading to the impugned order/judgment

passed by Ld. Trial Court of CJ(JD) Palwal, on dated

05.12.2019 in CS/610/2016, for the just and proper

adjudication of the present appeal by this Hon’ble court, in the

interest of justice.

APPELLANTS

THROUGH

Advocate for the APPELLANTS

Palwal Enrl. No. …………
Dated: .01.2020 Mob.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, PALWAL, HARYANA
RFA NO. OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hem Lata & Others ….. Appellants
VERSUS
Bijender Singh & Anr. ….. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT

I, Hem Lata D/o Late Sh. Shiv Dutt and wife of Sh. Dheeraj
Sharma, Age ….., R/o Village Tikri Brahman, Tehsil & Distt.
Palwal, now presently residing at Village Kanchan Pur, District
Dholpur (Rajasthan), today at Palwal, do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:-
1. That I am the Appellant no. 1 in the above noted case
and am well conversant with the facts of the case and
competent to depose to the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying application for summoning the
Ld. Trial Court record, has been drafted by my counsel
on my instructions, and has been read over to me in my
vernacular, and the same are true and correct, to the
best of my knowledge and legal advice received.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Palwal on this day of January 2020, that
the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT