IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE NO OF
2017
In the matter of: -
Sh. Subhash Chandra ……
Complainant
Versus
Sh. Rameshwar Yadav @ R. S. Yadav & Others ……Respondents/Accused
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 156 (3) OF CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The applicant above named most respectfully showeth: -
1.
That the
above-mentioned matter has been filed by the Complainant/ Applicant against
accused and the said complaint discloses a clear-cut case under section 3 of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act 1989 read with 120B I.P.C. The Applicant prays that
the facts contained in the said complaint may kindly be treated as part of the
application.
2.
That the
applicant submits that the offences involved in the said complaint are such
that in view of the prima facie material on record the direction for investigation
by the police and lodging of FIR should be passed in the interest of justice.
It will save the precious time of this Hon'ble Court.
It is, therefore, prayed that the SHO - P. S. Govind Puri, New
Delhi-110019. may kindly be directed to
investigate the complaint of the complainant and lodge an FIR.
Complainant
New Delhi
February 21th 2017
Through
ADVOCATE
New Delhi
Dated:
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE
OF 2017
In the matter of: -
Shri SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA. ……
Complainant
Versus
Shri RAMESHWER YADAV @ R. S. YADAV & Others ……Respondents/Accused
MEMO OF PARTIES
In the matter of: -
Sh. SUBHASAH CHANDRA GUPTA ……
Complainant
S/o. Late Sh. Om Prakash Gupta,
R/o. TA-105, Tuglakabad Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019.
Also at:
R/o. TA-171/1, Tuglakabad Extention, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019.
Versus
1.
Shri
NAGARMAL YADAV & RAMESHWAR YADAV @ R. S. Yadav …Respondents/Accused
S/o. Sh. Dhanna Ram Yadav (Involve-TA-105
&TA171/1,)
R/o. 301, Rajdhani Apartment,
Opp. Main Gate Shanti Van, Teleti,
Abu Road, Distt. Sirohi, Rajasthan.
2.
NAGARMAL
YADAV, (Involvment in my two properties sales of Nagarmal Yadav sale on shri Virender Singh Bhidhuri S/o. Shri Ram
Phool Village Tughlakabad New Delhi. (1st property Rs. 12-Lakh TA-105,110 sq.yds. & 2nd PROPERTY Rs.23-LAKH TA-171/1, 160 sq.
yds.) on Receipt dated 22.07.1995.
S/o. Sh.
Dhanna Ram Yadav (Involve C/o. Rameshwar
Yaday
R/o. 301, Rajdhani Appartment,
Opp. Main Gate Shanti Van, Teleti,
Abu Road, Distt. Sirohi, Rajasthan.
3.
SMT. USHA
YADAV, (TA-!05 & TA-171/1)
W/o. Sh. Rameshwar Yadav,
R/o 301, Rajdhani Apartment,
Opp. Main Gate Shanti Van, Teleti,
Abu Road, Distt. Sirohi, Rajasthan.
.
4.
Smt. URMILA
YADAV Real Sister
Rameshwar Yadav & Nagarmal Yadav
W/o. Sh.
Shiv Ram, (Involve
TA-105,) C/o. Rameshwar Yadav
R/o 301, Rajdhani Apartment,
Opp. Main Gate Shanti Van, Telehti
Abu Road, Distt. Sirohi, Rajasthan.
5.
MAHINDER
KUMAR JAISWAL , (Involve TA-105 & TA-171/1,)
S/o Sh. Shym Lal JAISWAL
R/o. TA- 337/5, Tuglakabad Extension, New
Delhi-110019.
6.
RAM KISHAN
YADAV @ R. K. YADAV, (Involve TA-105,
& TA-171/1,)
S/o. Sh. Deep Chand Yadav
R/o 161/17, Amrit Puri -B,
Garhi, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.
7.
WALSA
CHANDRA (involve
TA-105 & TA171/1,)
W/o Sh.
Chander Kurup Chandran,
J-!/88, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New
Delhi-110019.
8.
SATYA PAL
SINGH, (Involvments TA-105, & TA-171/1,)
S/o. Lae Sh. Baldev Singh Ikrarnama 30. March 1992
& PDN- 28.12.1991 & 30.12.1991 & Bills Kartar Ciment Stor
R/o. 34-A, III Floor, Kalkaji New Delhi-110019.
9.
RAM
PRAKASH, (Involve
TA-105,)
S/o. Sh. Shri Mahi Ram
R/o 40/12, DDA Flats, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110 023.
10. RAM KISHAN s/o. sh. Sh. Prem Das Bills M/S. YADAV DÉCOR- & LEAS DEEd
Dtated 21.06.1993 .(Real Brother-in-Low) Rameswar Yadav & Nagarmal Yadav
S/o. Sh. Prem Das,
(Involve
TA-171/1,)
Village: Kansli, Via - Kothpuli,
District.- Jaipur, Rajasthan
11. YAS PAL DHAWAN (Famlly Frend) Witness with-Signature on PDN. 28.12.1991. & 30,12,1991.
,& CS(OS) 2496/1994. (Affidevite & (Cross Examine) Rameshwar Yadav in pera no 8 and examination dt.
26-04-2007)
No - S/o. No
– Adress R/o.
12. Ishwri Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Phal
13. Dushyant S/o
Late Shri Ram Phal
14. Secretary L. G. of Delhi
15. M. C. D. S.D. Lajpat Nagar Delhi
16. Sub-Registrars of Meharouli Delhi
17. DESU/BSES. G.K.-II, South New Delhi
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 CR.P.C.
The Complainant named above most respectfully
submits as under:
1.
That the
Complainant is the victim of the evil design and under their wicked game plan
has tempered and fabricated All documents to grab the property dishonestly,
bearing the property No-TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extn. Kalkaji, admeasuring 155,
Sq. Yds. and at TA-105, Tughlakabad Extn. Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
Admeasuring-110, Sq. Yds.
(My
Father Late Shri Om Prakash Gupta S/o. Late Shri Ulfat Ram Gupta-Expire-on-Dated-24.02.2008. My Mother Late Smt. Somwati W/o.
Late Shri Om Prakash Gupta -Expire-on-Dated-24.04.2008. My Mother Smt.
Somwati Owner’s, Both Two Properties of the Same Area on 1st Property No. TA-105, Area
110 Sq. Yds. Smt. And 2nd property TA-171/1,
Tughlakabad Extn., Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Smt. Somwati
owner of two property Since-1st -14.02.1980. to dt. 24.04.2008.
& on 2nd
The Property No. TA-171/1,
Area 155, Sq. Yds. Since 23.09.1988. to dt.24.04.2008.
(Not any PROPERTES no Sale of 1st Property no. TA-105 and 2nd PROPERTY no. TA-171/1,
area 155 sq. yds. on dated 23.09.1988. on no sale
ANY property Life Time of Smt. Somwati W/o. Late Shri Om Prakash Gupta
& My Mother Smt. Somwati Expire on Dated-24.04.2008.
Smt.
Somwati Parched 1st Property No. TA-105, Tugalakabad Extn. Area 110,
Sq. Yds. on Dated-14.02.1980. Smt. Somwati Parched
of TA-105, Tughlakabad Extn.. Ram
Piari Sharma W/o. Shri Mohan Lal Shrma in between Property Sale for Name
of Smt. Somwati of Property No. TA-105, Tughlakabad Extn., New
Delhi. Area 110.Sq. Yds. on Dated-14.02.1980.
My Fadher Shri Om Prakash
Gupta 2nd Property NO. TA-171/1, Area 155, Sq. Yds. on dt.
23.09.1988. Transfer of Name Smt. Somwati W/o. Shri Om Prakash Gupta
My Mother Smt Somwati Owner on dt.23.09.1988 to 24.04.2008. & The 2st Property No. TA-171/1, Tuglakabad
Extn., Total Area-155, Sq. Yds. Smt Somwati
and Shri Om Prakash Gupta S/o. Late Shri Ulfat Ram Gupta for Name of
Smt. Somwati on Dated-23.09.1988.
Property No.
TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extn., New Delhi My Mother Smt. Somwati
Owner of TA-105, Tughlakabad Extn., Total Area 110. Sq.Yds. and Not Sale
Property Property No. TA-105, My Mother and My Father.
Mother Smt. Somwati & My Father Shri Om Prakash Gupta No Signature of
any Documents & Site Plan on Dated 20.10,92. And No My
Mother Smt. Somwati of TI-Mark of LTI & RTI All any Documents with Site
Plan-30. Sq. Yds. Out of 110. Sq. Yds. on Dated 20.10.92. And My
Mother & My Father No TI Mark & No Signature of all any Documents Dated-20.10.1992. And 1st
Suit File- CS No. 1018/1994. On dt.25.10.94. Title Nagarmal V/s Somwati of Decree Against Smt. Somwati on Dated-28.02.2002. Shri S.
K. Sarvaria ADJ Tis Hazari Court Delhi.
1st Shri Nagarmal
Yadav S/o. Shri Dhanna Ram Yadav Agreement To Sale And Parched Dated-20.10.1992.
2nd
No. Receipt on Dated-20.10.1992.
3rd
No. Site Plan on Dated-20.10.1992
All
Documents of TA-105, Area 68 Sq. Yds. Out of 110 Sq. Yds. on Dated 20.10.1992. &
Not. Signature of Shri Om Prakash Gupta &
Not. TI Mark’s of LTI & RTI of Smt Somwati any all Documents & with Site
Plan Area 30.Sq. Yds. Out of 110 Sq. Yds. & all Documents on
Dated-20.10.92.,
Not. Shri
Om Prakash Gupta of Any Signature’s & Not. Smt. Somwati Any TI Mark’s of RTI & LTI of Smt.Somwati on Dated 20.10.92. Property
TA-105, TKD Extn.
Nagarmal Yadav with Rameshwar Yadav of Sowing Smt. Somwati TI Mark’s on
LTI all Documents on dt.20.10.1992.
& Forgery in Site Plan 40 Sq. Yds Out of 110.sq.yds. Create Site Plan any Others
Sources of Site Plan in Mark’s 40 to Mark-30-Forads Create.,
Smt. Somwati of TI Mark’s of RTI & LTI., TA-105 Area 68 Sq. Yds. out of
110 Sq. Yds. on Dt. 20.10.92. & TA-171/1, Area 160 Sq. Yds. on dt.
17.02.93.
Range Feegger, (TA-105, Area 40. Sq. Yds. Out of 110. Sq. Yds. & Site Plan -to-30. Sq. Yds.). My Site-Plan
40. Sq. yds. All Ready TI of RTI on Somwati & Signature in Hindi Om Prakash
Gupta, in Site Plan on-40.Sq. Yds. out of 110. Sq. Yds. only,- Area 40. Sq.
Yds. On Create of Rang Figure 30. Sq. Yds.
out 110. Sq. Yds. on Dated 20.10.1992.
(Regd. GPA Sub-Registrar Delhi-
TA-105, Area 45. Sq. Yds. Out of 110. Sq. Yds. Nagarmal Yadav in faver of Rameshwar Yadav Dated-22.05.2002.
Shri Nagarmal Yadav
Advance Payments of Sale Receipt on Dated 22.07.1995. My 1s t
Property No. TA-105, Tuga01lkabad
Extn., Area of 110. Sq. Yds. Rs.
12-Lakh. and My 2nd Property No. TA-171/1, Tuglakabad Extn., New
Delhi Area of 155. Sq. Yds.Rs. 23 Lakh Agenst Both Properties Ricived Mani Shri Virender Singh S/o. Ram Phal
whereby the accused No.-1. 1st IKRARNAMA dated 30.03.1992 had given 2nd
loan to the father of the complainant on 31.03.1992 at the different point of
time i.e. plaintiff had
borrowed 2.50 Lakhs without interest/ on rent in any manner, initially on
dt.31.03.1992 and 3rd ALL 2nd PROPERTY
NO. TA-171/1, Dated 23.09.1988, AREA 155,Sq. Yds. ALL PROPERTY DOCUMENTS OF
DECEMBER 1992. DESU METER PROBLMCES RECIVED BUT NOT RETERNS MY ALL PROPERTY
DOCUMENTS OF TA-171/1, and such further amounts as would be required by
the parents of the plaintiff for the construction of building over the other plot No.
TA-171/1, Tuglakabad Extn, admeasuring 155, Sq. Yds. Thereafter the parents of
the plaintiff took loan of Rs. 1.24 Lakhs on different dates (Rs. 5,000/- on
10.08.1992; Rs. 10,000/- on 15.03.1993; Rs. 65,000/- on 04.05.1993; Rs.
50,000/- on 05.07.1993, the last received payments from the defendant Rameshwar
Yadav) and did not give Rs. 6,000/- as
promised to give later on. Hence the loan amount under second phase was Rs.
1.24, lakhs and not 1.30, lakhs.
2.
That
against the said loan the parents of the complainant had mortgaged a godown of
40 Sq. Yds. Out of 110 Sq. Yds. Part of
the land of Plot No.- TA-105, admeasuring 110 Sq. Yds. This godown was used by
the my parents of the complainant for storage of the goods/material used for
the purpose of other property construction of
house over my plot No. TA-171/1. The said loan was taken for construction of
the building over Plot No. TA-171/1, and therefore to instill faith, the father
of the complainant gave a declaration in
the form “IKRARNAMA” (Unregistered
referred as “Shri Om Prakash Gupta (Kachchi Mortgage) Name of Shri Rameshwar
Yadav -Godown 40 Sq. Yds. out of 110 Sq. Yds. Land Plot No.TA-105,” Month of March 1992, on certain terms and conditions. With
the passage of time the accused No.-1. took the illiterate parents of the
complainant into his confidence and therefore the accused No.-1. insisted to
get the said “Kachchi Mortgage” registered and therefore the parents of the
Complainant went to the office of the Sub-Registrar INA New Delhi, to get the
same registered as “Pakki Mortgage” on 23.02.1993. But taking the benefit of
the illiteracy of the parents of the complainant and the age being over 70
years, the accused No.-1. got signed/ thump impression on certain documents
pre-typed and few pages
in blank, papers giving the understanding to the parents of the
Complainant that all the documents GPA & WILL Dated
23.02.93 that the parents of the complainant signed are documents
pertaining to the registration of the Godown Mortgage of the 40 sq. yds of the
part of the land of plot No. TA-105 admeasuring 110 sq. yds, as “Pakki Mortgage
Godown”. The affidavit filed in CCP No.-32/1993 in RFA No- 14/1989, annexed as-ANNEXURE-A/3,
Stating all the
state of affairs regarding the loan from the accused No.-1 herein for the
purpose of construction of the house on plot No.-TA-171/1, admeasuring 155 Sq.
Yds. and also stating the facts and circumstances in which the complainant had
given on December 1992.
the all original
documents Dated 23.09.1988. pertaining the
property No. TA-171/1. All litigation be it dispute regarding 1st Property
No. TA-105, Total All Area 110 Sq. Yds and 2nd Property No. TA-171/1,
is the bye product of the said EXRARNAMA 30. March 1992. The site plan of plot No TA-105, given in the
form of lease to the accused No.-1, the said “EKRARNAMA” Month of March 1992
is annexed with the plaint as ANNEXURE-A/2
& A-3 respectively.
3.
That,
in course of the preparation of documents with regard to the said registration
of the "Mortgage deed" the accused No.-1, Rameswar Yadav being a property dealer was able to get
“some" papers signed from the complainant, through fraud and deceit. The
accused No.-1, Rameshwar Yadav got other set of papers signed from the father
of the complainant.
4.
The
complainant, who had all the faith and confidence on the accused No.1, and
believed that he could do no wrong, did not apply any caution and simply put
his signatures wherever required by the accused No.1, and his men, at the
Sub-Registrar’s office at INA, New Delhi.
5.
That the
said ‘EKRARNAMA’ (Kachchi Mortgage Deed) 1st plot No 1, TA-105,
Tugulakabad Extn. Only 40 sq. yds. Out of 110 sq. yds. in original Documents
has been filed first time in the court Oder Ms Pooja Gupta (C.J.) Saket Court on
Dated-14.01.2013 in a suit pending Vide Suit No.178/2010 pending in the court
of At Time Ms. Tanvi Khurana, Civil Judge, Saket Court New Delhi, titled as
‘Subhash Chandra Gupta Vs Rameshwar Yadav & Ors.
6.
That from the naked eyes it is
apparent that the
place where the name of only Rameshwar Yadav is written there is a scratch,
which can be sensed by rubbing finger’s on the, where the word ‘URMILA YADAV’ Un-Non Partion Name is written. On holding the
paper (Document) against the light with an
angle, it will be apparent that some other word was written on which the
accused No.-4 Urmila Yadav Real Sister Rameshwar Yadav & Nagarmal Yadav is
written. Infact the name of the accused No.-1, was written on it. Secondly, the
accused No.-1, Rameshwar Yadav has deliberately made an over writing on the date.
The date was infact Month of March 1992, over which the accused No.-1, in
connivance with the other co-accused wrote 30.12.1991. Thirdly the place where
the name of the two witnesses is appearing, the witnesses Sh. Ram Prakash at time case involments Smt.
Somwati v/s. Hukam Shing in 1st Property No. TA-105, 1990, and Satya Pal Singh are the witnesses TA-105,
ikrarnama 30.03.1992 forj/manipulate/cutting/420/flude/etc. SHRI RAMESHWAR
YADAV ON RONG FIGER of name SMT. URMILA YADAV-dt.30.12.1991. TA-171/1, M/s. Kartar Ciment Store & M/s Swetanag Enterprise Forj
Bills & Affidefit and Croes Suit No. 2496/94 in Delhi High Court And
Panding At Time in Cj-ARC Ms Narmita Agarwal Tis Hazari
Court Delhi with whom the father of the complainant was
contesting a case. Fourthly, the Notary dates on which the witnesses signed
& dates deferent’s on the ‘EKRARNAMA’ is on 30.12.1991 and other witnesses
signed on the said ‘EKRARANAMA’ is undated.
7.
That against the said
loan, the accused No.-1, Rameshwar Yadv on 23.02.1993,
insisted to get the 40 sq. yds out of 110 sq. yds. in 1st plot No.-
TA-105, to be registered in his favour.
Under the garb of his innocence and illiteracy got prepared a forged WILL &
GPA of the entire 2nd property No.-TA-171/1, on 23.02.1993. The GPA
was registered in favour of Accused No.-3, (Smt. Usha Yadav) W/o Rameshwar
Yadav (Accused No.-1) and WILL (Registered) in favour of Accused No.-1
(Rameshwar Yadav) in reference to plot No.: TA-171/1, admeasuring 160 sq. yds
(actual area is 155 sq. yds), and it bears the thump impression of Somwati and also bears the
signature of Om Prakash Gupta. While other documents- Agreement to sell, possession
letter, receipt, affidavit, indemnity bond etc. are unregistered/ notarized on
17.02.1993. The other documents - Agreement to
sell, possession letter, receipt, affidavit, indemnity bond were signed earlier
on dated 17.02.1993 and the WILL & GPA was signed and got signed and registered But not Pay Fee
Paid Sub Ragistrar and No 2nd Wittness Documents on dated 23.02.1993.
The photocopy of the GPA and WILL (both registered) and other Dated
17.02.93 All Documents NO THUM IMPERTION on SOMWATI & OM PRAKASH GUPTA
Forje All documents- Agreement to sell, possession
letter, receipt, affidavit, indemnity bond etc. are unregistered/ Notarized are
annexed as ANNEXURE-2 (Colly).
8.
That a Lease Deed was made by Accused
No.-1 (Rameswar Yadav Lessor) in favour Ram
Kishan Yadav @ R.K. Yadav Lessee witnessed by accused No.-7 ( Walsa Chandran
Rameshwer Yaday ) House in Rented and accused No.-9 ( Ram Kishan, S/o.
Prem Das -Rameshwar Yadav & Nagarmal Yaday Real
sala-brother-in-law) on Dated 21.06.1993, on rent of the basement
constructed over House No.- TA-171/1. The copy of lease deed dated 21.06.1993, But on (House Tress Passing) my
house No. in inter TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extn Polish
Complant on Dated 26.10.93 Which is
annexed as Annexure—3.
9.
That the MCD Authority on 20.09.1993
issued a show cause notice was issued to the O.P. Gupta by MCD vide letter No:
376/B/VC/SZ/93, for demolition of the construction raised by Sh. O. P. Gupta on
House No.-TA-171/1. An appeal against the show cause was filed before the
Lieutenant Governor on 07.10.1993. The photocopy of the Show cause notice
issued by MCD dated 20.09.1993, is annexed as ANNEXURE-4.
10.
That
sometimes in the month of October, 1993 the defendant claimed to have in
possession of registered WILL and General Power of Attorney executed by the
mother of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.-1 in respect of property
No.-TA-171/1, Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi of the plaintiffs. Immediately
the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 18.10.1993 to the defendants cancelling
the alleged WILL and the Power of Attorney dated 23.02.1993 purported by the
plaintiff.
11.
That
the defendant sent a reply to the legal notice dated 18.10.1993, on 22.10.1993.
AND DATED 22.10. 1993,
MY REPLY NOTICE DATED 23.11.1993-INVOLMENT
NOTICE DATES SUIT NO.23/1995, ON 13.01.1995. TAITLE SHRI R. S. YADAV V/S SMT.
SOMWATI to the counsel for the plaintiff herein
alleging other facts regarding the property No.-TA-171/1, which was to the
utter shock and surprise to the plaintiff’s parents, allegation, inter alia, in
brief as are as under:
i)
Residence
of defendants were shown as TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extention, New Delhi.
ii)
Defendants
are the owners of the said property No.-TA-171/1, Tighlakabad Extention,, New
Delhi.
iii)
NOT SMT. SOMWATI ON T.
I. OF RTI AND NOT LTI ON ALL DOCUMENTS DATED17.02.1993. AND NOT SINETURES OF
SHRI OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND BUT SHRI RAMESHWAR YADAV AND SMT USHA YADAV ON ALL
AFFIDFIT/REPLY/STATEMENTE/LEAS DEED DT. 21.06.1993/17.02.1993/CROESS IN JR/DHC
24/09/2010./avidance/ETC. SHOW ATESTED WITNESS
SHRI RAM KISHAN YADAV URF R. K. YADAV IN 1st FILE IN DHC. SUIT no. 2496/1994,
ON 07.11.1994, TITLE OM PRAKASH GUPTA OTHERS V/S RAMESHWAR YADAV OTHERS AND 2nd
FILE IN THC. SUIT no. 23/1995 on 13.01.1995. TAITLE R. S. YADAV V/S SMT
SOMWATI. ALL Vide
an agreement to sell dt. 17/02/1993 entered into by the plaintiff No. 2 with
the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff No. 2 have sold, transferred, conveyed and alienated all her ownership rights,
title and interests,
free from all encumbrances and charges in the said
property No.TA-171/1,Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi irrevocably and for
valuable consideration to defendant No. 1.
iv)
At the time of the agreement to
sell and execution of other possessory and ownership documents including will
and registered General Power of Attorney, the plaintiffs received the entire
sale consideration from the defendants and also handed over the possession of
the entire property to defendants as owners thereof.
v)
The defendant No. 1 Sh. Rameshwar
Yadav is the real owner of the entire presently constructed property No.
TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extn. New Delhi and has constructed the same subsequent
to the agreement executed, sale made and the
possession handed over by the plaintiffs to the defendant No. l.
The defendant No. 1 has constructed the
basement, ground, 1st & 2nd Floors in the said property.
vi)
The Will and General Power of
Attorney executed and registered by the plaintiff No. 2 in favour of defendants
were part of the transferred documents executed
by the plaintiff No.-2/ Somwati.
vii)
The defendants after the
execution of the said documents and payment of the entire sale consideration
have paid another sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the plaintiff No.-1 who was also an
attesting witness of all documents executed by the plaintiff No.-2 as an
additional amount for the sale of the above said property and thus the
defendants have already paid to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 8,65,000/- apart
from the amount of nearly 20 lakhs which has been spent in constructing the
aforesaid property.
The copy of the Legal Notice
Dated 18.10.93., reply Dated 22.10.92. and the replication Dated…….to the legal
notice is annexed as
ANNEXURE-5 (Colly).
12.
That
subsequent to the notice, reply and replication to the reply to the legal
notice, the plaintiff was served another legal notice on 20.09.1994, through
his counsel Sanjay Goswami on behalf of
accused No.-2, Nagarmal Yadav, brother of Rameshwar Yadav. Reply to the legal notice was served
upon the defendant No.-2
13.
That
the defendants conspired and obtained signatures and thump impression and
signatures from the mother and father of the plaintiff on a number of documents
which they in a clandestine manner converted into documents pertaining to
transfer of the property of the plaintiff in favour of the defendants.
14.
That
the defendant No.-1 misguided the parents of the plaintiffs and under the
treacherous and diabolic wicked game plan with apparel of pseudo regards to the
parents of the plaintiff, got the documents pertaining to the plot No.-
TA-171/1, for the purpose of obtaining the electricity connection. The
electricity connection was obtained in the name of the mother of the plaintiff,
but the defendant never returned the documents pertaining to the plot No.
TA-171/1, despite repeated demands.
15.
That
the plaintiff therefore filed a suit for cancellation of GPA & WILL dated
23.02.1993 on 07.11.1994, pertaining to the property No TA-171/1 admeasuring
155 sq. yds. before the Hon’ble High Court Of Delhi in Civil Suit (Original
Suit) No.: 2496 of 1994 titled as “OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ORS. VS RAMESHWAR
YADAV & ANR”,, which was decided on 25.03.2011 and thereafter filed
review RFA ( RFA No -) and SLP.
16.
That
it may be noted that the accused forcibly entered into in the property which
was still under construction constructed by the complainant i.e TA-171/1, only
on 26.10.1993. A complaint was made against the accused persons on 26.10.1993.
The copy of the complaint is annexed as ANNEXURE-6.
17.
That
on 26.10.1993, the defendants forcibly criminally and wrongfully entered into
the possession of the property bearing the property No. TA-171/1, Tuglakabad
Extension, New Delhi except one hall on the ground floor in which the
plaintiffs are living. While the
construction over the plot No.-TA-171/1, was yet to be completed i.e. structure
and the walls were completed and the finishing was yet to be completed, the
defendants forcibly entered into the building on 26.10.1993, at its incomplete
stage and occupied basement (shown in green color), two shops on the ground
floor (shown in red color), first Floor (shown in pink color) and second Floor
(shown in Yellow color). The ground floor (shown in blue color) is in
possession of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff alongwith his
parents and family members were residing in the ground floor which is still in
possession of the petitioner. A
complaint against the defendant was made to the concerned police station. The site plan of Plot No.- TA-171/1 and the copy
of complaint dated 26.10.1993 is annexed with the plaint as ANNEXURE-A/4 (Colly) and ANNEXURE-A/5.
18.
That
the complaint dated 26.10.1993 addressed to the Police Commissioner was marked
to DCP (Vigilance) for enquiry and prompt action till today no action has been
taken by the police either against the defendants or against the erring police
officers.
19.
That
the Plaintiffs, thereafter obtained the certified
copies of the Will and General Power of Attorney from the office of the
Sub-Registrar New Delhi.
20.
That the plaintiffs then sent a
rejoinder dt. 23/11/1993 through their advocate to the counsel for the defendants
the copies of which were also sent to the defendants through Registered/AD
Cover. The counsel of the defendants have received the same. However the
Registered/AD Covers containing the rejoinder dt. 23/11/93 sent to the defendants
were returned undelivered with the remark- “Out of Station".
21.
That it is relevant to mention
that during the construction of the building over the plot No.- TA-171/1,, the
father of the plaintiff had written application for straighten the inclined pole
over the said plot. As even today the portion of the building on one corner
i.e. North-west, has been left unconstructed due to the inclined pole. The
plaintiff would not hesitate if the local commissioner is appointed to
ascertain the facts of the submission made herein. The copy of the application
alongwith photography is annexed as ANNEXURE-A/6 (Colly).
22.
The defendants have no right or
interest in the property No. TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extn. New Delhi. The
plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the said property. The defendants have nothing to do with the
same.
23.
That the defendants cheated and
defrauded the plaintiffs of their valuable rights in property No. TA-171/1,
Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi.
24.
That no agreement to sell dt. 17/02/1993
or of any other date was ever entered into by the defendants with
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not
sold, transferred, conveyed and alienated the said property No.- TA-105 or
TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extn. New Delhi.
If any such document purporting to agreement to sell is held by the
defendants the same is a false, fabricated, forged and fraudulently procured
document. The plaintiffs requested that a copy of the same immediately be
supplied to them for their scrutiny and to take necessary steps against such
fraudulent, forged and fabricated documents, but the defendants have not
supplied the same.
25.
That no consideration was ever
passed on to complainant by the accused
persons.
26.
That the plaintiffs emphatically
deny having ever negotiating or entering into or executing, and/or registering
any agreement, will and General
Power of Attorney in favour of the defendants in respect of property No.
TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extn. New Delhi.
No sooner the plaintiffs came to know about the forgery, fraud and the
mischief committed by the defendants, they immediately cancelled all those
forged and fabricated and fraudulently procured documents. The plaintiffs have
not received any amounts towards the alleged sale consideration. The plaintiffs
also have not handed over the possession of any portion of the said property to
the defendants.
27.
That the plaintiffs are the real
owner of the entire property No. TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi.
The property has been constructed by the plaintiffs out of their own funds,
resources and investments as submitted hereinabove. The plaintiffs have
constructed the basement, ground, 1st & 2nd floor in the said property. The
said construction in the property No. TA-171/1, Tughlakabad Extension was
completed in the month of July, 1993.
28.
That
no WILL & General Power of Attorney was executed and registered by
Plaintiffs n favour of the defendants. Since no transfer documents were ever
executed by Plaintiffs, there is no question of the alleged WILL & General
Power of Attorney forming part of any alleged transfer documents and also there
is no question of passing of any valuable consideration .
29.
Police
Complaints: Dt. 25.10.93 H.C. Forged
30.
Smt. Ishwari Devi V/s. Om Prakash Gupta,
(Respondent, (2). Smt. Somwati, CCP 32/93 – RFA 14/1989. Orders Property
TA-171/1, Transfer Name Smt. Somwati File in Court All Documents Dated-23.09.1988.
in Court of DHC. DESU/BSES
Facts: Forged Transfer Connection
31.
MCD
After Tress Pass Pulish Complant Dated 26.10.1993. MCD Involvement Notice
Involve of Shri Rameshwar Yadav Dated-09.11.1993. Shri Om Prakash Gupta- V/s- MCD
Case no.71/2003-CA-MCD Act-1957.
Order Dated 11.02.2004, (Vijay Kapoor,L.G.)
It is therefore, prayed that the accused person may kindly be summoned,
prosecuted and punished in accordance with the law.
Complainant
New Delhi
August 2003
Through
Khemka
& Co., Advocates
69,
Patiala House Courts
New
Delhi
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI
COMPLAINT CASE
OF 2016
In the matter of: -
Subhash Chandra …… Complainant
Versus
Rameshwar Yadav @ R. S. Yadav
& Others … Respondents/Accused
LISTS OF WITNESS OF THE COMPLAINANT
1.
Any other
witness with the permission of the Court.
Complainant
New Delhi
10th July 2016
Through
Khemka
& Co., Advocates
69,
Patiala House Courts
New
Delhi
1
A-1.Suit CS(OS) No.2494/94 Om Prakash Gupta v/s. Rameshwar yadav 7
Otrs. Crose
examinination Dated 12.05.2010 . JR/DHC - Bharat PrashaI had never gone to house
TA-171/1, Tughlakabqd Ext. TA-105/2. Tughlakabad Ext. ever prior to
Decmber 1992
1. A-
2. Pulish compant Dated 10.08.09. Meri
Nizy Malkiyat Goduwn continus 20-year old
youes TA-105/2, 45 sq.yds since 1985..P.S. Govind puri.
2. A-3.
Pulish complant dated 4/10/08. My godwun
un-diputed TA-105, 40.sq.yds. since 1990-91 P.S.Govind Puri
3. A-1.Suit
CS(OS) No.2494/94 Om Prakash Gupta v/s.
Rameshwar yadav 7 Otrs.
Crose examinination Dated 12.05.2010 . JR/DHC
- Bharat Prashar. I had never
gone to house TA-171/1, Tughlakabqd Ext.
TA-105/2. Tughlakabad Ext. ever
prior to Decmber 1992
4. A-
2. Pulish compant Dated 10.08.09. Meri
Nizy Malkiyat Goduwn continus 20-year old
youes TA-105/2, 45 sq.yds since 1985..P.S. Govind puri.
5. A-3.
Pulish complant dated 4/10/08. My godwun
un-diputed TA-105, 40.sq.yds. since 1990-91 P.S.Govind Puri
6. A-4. Pulish complain dated 18.09.08. my shop Yadav & Company ka Godwon Since
1990-91. .
7.
Post A Comment:
0 comments so far,add yours