1

Internship Report

Submitted By:
Rohan Mittal
74/16
B.A. LLB. (Hons.)
Semester – 9th
Section – B
 2

Acknowledgement
This internship is a result of contributions from various sides without which it would not have
taken shape. Firstly, I would like to thank Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Advocate for having guided me
not only during my internship period but also in my life as a law student. Next, I would like to
thank the department teachers and office staff who have worked tirelessly during these tough
times and have tried to help students in every possible way. And finally my parents, who have
been a support to me throughout my life and have helped me, guided me to perform my best in
all interests of my life, my grandparents who have always inculcated the best of their qualities in
me.
 3

Table of Contents

Serial Contents Page No.

No.
1. Dharampal Vs. Maya Devi(Civil) 4-9
2. Kavita Vs. Muniram(Civil) 10-15
3. State of Haryana Vs. Durga andothers(Criminal) 16-19
4. State of Haryana Vs. Vishnu and others(Criminal) 20-24
 4

CIVIL SUIT- I

IN THE COURT OF NIMIT KUMAR, CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIVISION)

NARNAUL UID NO.HR0406

CNR NO.:HRNR02-000729-2015

CIVIL SUIT NO.396OF 2015

Dharampal s/o Sh. Bhagwan Das Caste Mahajan Age 52years ,R/O Mandi
Ateli , at present shopkeeper Ateli ,Tehsil Mandi Ateli , District
Mohindergarh (Haryana) …………………….Plantiff

VERSUS

Smt. Maya Devi Wd/o Sh. Prabhudayal, Caste Ahir ,R/O Village Mandlana at
present R/O Mandi Ateli ,Tehsil Mandi Ateli ,District Mohindergarh

…………………..Defendant

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

PRESENT: Sh. R.K Sanghi, Advocate for Plantiff

Sh. R.K Mehta, Advocate for defendant

 5

FACTS OF THE CASE

Plantiff’s version:

The brief facts of the suit are that the plantiff is coming in exclusive possession over the demise
one pucca shop one ‘Khan’ facing west ,having iron shutters, boundes as follows –East-Land of
owner, West-public road approach to mandi ateli,North-Shop of Sumer Singh in occupation of
tenant Surender Singh, South-Shop of Prabhat Medicos ,as a lawful tenant under the ownership
of present defendant. The plantiff had initially taken the said shop on rent at the rate of 500 per
month in the year 1989. Later on , with the mutual consent of both the parties, the agreed rent of
the demised shop was enhanced from time to time . Later on , rent note executed between the
parties on 16-10 -2001 and the permanent agreed fair rent of the demised shop was fixed as
Rs.3000 per month excluding electricity charges. The defendant is coming receiving the agreed
rent from the plantiff. She never issued any receipt for the same and now plantiff has paid the
rent of demised shop to present defendant upto 31st of May 2015. Thus, plantiff is coming a
lawful tenant over the present property under the landlordship of defendant. Plantiff is coming in
exclusive possession and occupation over the demise shop as lawful tenant since then over the
demised shop in the name and style of M/s Amit Provisionals store. An electronic connection
being account number MM21-1433 is installed at the demised shop in the name of landlady i.e.
present defendant and present plantiff is using the same as per the term of written rent note
executed between the parties and is coming paying electricity charges regularly.

Defendant’s Version:

Defendant submitted that plantiff is in occupation of shop in question as tenant of the defendant
landlady who is owner thereof. The plantiff has mentioned the southern boundary of the shop
wrongly as shop of Prabhat Medicos while this southern side shop is in possession of Jaswant
Singh who is running chemist business in the name of Rakesh Medicos. It is wrong to allege that
initially the shop was let out by the defendant to the plantiff in the year 1989 on the monthly rent
of Rs.500 per month. However, it is admitted that presently the plantiff is in occupation of the
shop in question as tenant of the defendant under the rent note dated 16-10-2001 at the rent of
Rs.3000 per month from 1st of November 2001.It is wrong to allege that it is permanently agreed
fair rent of the shop in question . It is wrong to allege that the plantiff has paid the rent up to 31 st
of May 2015 to the defendant or that he has been paying the agreed rent or that the defendant had
not being issuing receipt to him.

Suit for permanent restraining the defendant from interfering in the tenancy rights of plantiff in
respect of the above mentioned property and further restraining the defendant from interfering in
the user, possession ,business and enjoyment of plantiff over the premise in dispute as a lawful
tenant , in any manner and further defendant be also restrained from forcibly dispossessing the
plantiff from tenanted premises except in due course of law and further suit for permanent
injunction against the defendant restraining her from causing any damage to the roof or walls or
 6

any part of the tenanted shop in any manner and also from demolishing the tenanted shop roofs,
walls and chajja projection or any part thereof in any manner and be also restrained from
blocking or storing any water over the roof of tenanted shop intentionally or otherwise and from
causing any seepage of water in to the tenanted shop of plantiff in any manner.

ISSUES INVOLVED
1. Whether the plantiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction against the
defendant as prayed for?
2. Whether the suit of the plantiff is not maintainable?
3. Whether the plantiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit?
4. Whether the plantiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?
5. Whether the plantiff has suppressed the material facts from the court as alleged in written
statement, if so what effect?
6. Relief

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ARGUMENTS BY PLANTIFF
The learned counsel on behalf of plantiff submits that the plantiff is coming a lawful tenant over
the present property under the landlordship of defendant. Plantiff is coming in exclusive
possession and occupation over the demise shop as lawful tenant since then over the demised
shop in the name and style of M/s Amit provisional store. It is pertitent to note that the present
plantiff is a regular income tax assesse and is comig regularly filing his income tax returns of his
proprietorship firm.The counsel further submits that the plantiff has also got his aforesaid
business concern registered under section 13 of the Punjab shops and commercial Establishment
Act,1958 .Furthermore the present plantiff has also got verified his weights and measures from
legal metrology ,Narnaul. It is also worthwhile to mention here that plantiff had obtained life
insurance policies from LIC wherein also his address is given at the demise shop .The aforesaid
policies were obtained prior to the execution of the written rent note between the parties, which
clearly proves that the present plantiff is coming in occupation of the demise shop as lawful
tenant prior to the execution of the rent note.The counsel further submits that the tenancy rights
of the present plantiff are fully protected as per the provisions of Haryana control of Rent and
Eviction Act. The present defendant is intending to dispossess the plantiff forcibly from the
tenant shop and is trying to interfere in the business , occupation, user and enjoyment of plantiff
as lawful tenant. The defendant is having a malafide intention to harass the plantiff illegally so as
to force him to vacate the shop in question in favour of defendant. To implement his aforesaid
evil design and by taking undue advantage of ongoing summer vacations, two days ago the
present defendant had started demolishing the upper storey roof and chobara situated over the
 7

demise shop and had intentionally caused extensive damage to the roof of demise shop by
scratching the upper layer of the roof and also by pulling down the debris on the roof of the
demise shop from the considerable height and thereby causing extensive damage to the roof of
the demise shop. Furthermore the defendant has also demolished and removed the ‘munder’ over
the roof of the demised shop and has also caused extensive damage to the chajja projection over
the demised shop. The present defendant has intentionally had stored huge water over the roof of
the demised shop and the defendant has caused seepage of heavy water into the tenanted shop of
present plantiff resulting into great nuisance and heavy loss to plantiff. Furrthermore, the illegal
acts committed by the present defendant has also caused extensive damage to the inner roof and
walls of the demised shop. The counsel submits that the defendant has no legal right or authority
to cause any damage to the tenanted shop of the plantiff nor she is having any right to demolish
any part of tenanted premises or to store or block any water over the roof of tenanted shop, but
defendant is bent upon in implementing aforesaid evil design and if the defendant succeed in her
evil design in any manner ,then plantiff would suffer irreparable loss which would not be
compensated in terms of money and multiplicity of the proceedings would arrive. As such the
plantiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for.

ARGUMENTS BY DEFENDANT
The learned counsel for defendant submits that the allegation of the plantiff are false and
baseless. The defendant has filed rent eviction petition against the plantiff on the ground of non-
payment or rent and besides other grounds. The plantiff is continuing as tenant since 1995-96
only and he is doing the Kiryana business there. The defendant has no personal knowledge about
the plantiff to be income tax assessee or filing of income tax returns by him.The counsel further
submits that the answering defendant has no personal knowledge about registration of business
of plantiff for giving of address of shop in question in the educational institutes of his children or
in LIC policy of the plantiff or in legal metrology department by him. There is no such intention
of the defendant to dispossess the plantiff forcibly from the shop in question or to interfere in his
business as a tenant in a wrongful manner or to harass him for forcing to vacate shop in question.
The defendant is an old age widow lady who has no male issue. The defendant has only one
daughter who is married and settled with her husband in Palam Delhi . Thus the plantiff is
making up pressure on the defendant to sell the shop in question to him by making false and
baseless allegations and by illegally dragging her in frivolous litigation. The defendant did not
start any demolition drive of the first floor super structure existing on the shop in question nor
any damages were caused to the roof of the might shop in any manner nor the munder was
removed by her or any damage was caused to chajja projection. No water was stored on the roof
of shop in question nor any alleged seepage occurred there. The defendant has not caused any
nuisance or loss or injury to the plantiff or the shop in question. In fact the answering defendant
alongwith her relative Nityanand had purchased a commercial site of size 18x40 feet having area
80sq.yds. situated in the revenue estate of village Dhoaunda but falling in municipal limits of
Mandi Ateli from Bohatram by way of registered sale deed no.589 dated 7-7-1978. Thereupon
 8

the defendant and her relative Nityanand obtain the sanction of construction jointly from
municipal committee Ateli Mandi in the year 1988 so as to construct two shops with one gallery
or the front western portion of the said property while the rear eastern portion was kept as open
courtyard. Under the mutual settlement and oral agreement with Nityanand the northern side
shop was applied by the defendant while the southern side shop was occupied by Nityanand and
gallery was left for common use of both of them . Both these shops having equal width , length ,
height and construction material . A combined RCC roof was laid on both the shops. The shop in
question was let out to the plantiff only in the first instance in or around the year 1995-96 on the
persuation of said Nityanand and his son Jaswant Singh who was having very close and cordial
relations with the plantiff. Subsequently , the rent note was executed on 16/10/2001 by plantiff in
favour of defendant when the rent was enhanced to Rs.3000 per month. The aforesaid Jaswant
singh s/o Nityanand had sold his adjoining shop with all other rights of the aforesaid propert to
Praveen Kumar S/o Hathi Ram R/o Mandi Ateli who is also very close friend of the plantiff. Said
Praveen Kumar has demolished the south side shop and the gallery completely without any
permission from the defendant. The said demolitions were raised by Praveen Kumar in absence
of the defendant when she was away to Delhi for staying with her daughter there. The present
plantiff has been present , seeing and acknowledging the aforesaid demolitions and constructions
of Praveen Kumar and he has been privy to the same. The counsel further submitted that the
plantiff himself is a wrongdoer.He is in collusion with aforesaid Jaswant Singh and Praveen
Kumar has been building pressure on the defendant to sell the aforesaid property to him and
when the defendant refused to oblige him in this legal motive, he has filed the instant sue under a
fraudulent design to harass the defendant. The counsel submits the plantiff is not going to suffer
any alleged injury and the plantiff is entitled for any alleged relief and he has also concealed the
material facts from the court for filing this false suit . In this way the plantiff is not entitled to
any relief from the Honourable Court.

JUDGEMENT
The trial judge after hearing the contentions made by learned counsels for both the parties and
have gone through the case record very carefully and minutely . My issue wise finding runs as
under:

ISSUE NO .1

The onus to prove this issue is upon the plantiff as per maxim “Affirmative non – neganti
incumbit probation” i.e. the burden of proof lies on the person who assert not on whom who
denied. To prove this issue learned counsel for the plantiff contended that defendant cannot
dispossess the plantiff as he is tenant. Further contended that defendant be permanently
restrained to oust the plantiff from the shop in question. On the other hand learned counsel for
the defendant contended that the defendant is owner of the shop in question and the cannot be
permanently restrained.
 9

After hearing the contentions of learned counsels for both the parties , perusing the record, this
court comes to the conclusion that as per record, defendant is owner of the sue land. This fact is
admitted by the plantiff that defendant is the owner of the sue land and plantiff is a tenant. It is
settled law that owner of the property cannot be permanently restrained to take possession.
However, as the plantiff is admittedly in possession of the sue land so he cannot be dispossess
except the procedure established by law. So issue no.1 is dispose off.

ISSUES NO .2-5

Onus to prove these issues was upon the defendant, however these issues were not pressed
during the course of arguments nor any evidence in this regard was led and therefore findings of
these issues stands decided against the defendant.

RELIEF

As sequel of my finding on the foregoing issues, the suit of the plantiff is hereby dismissed.
However plantiff cannot be dispossessed except the procedure established by law. Decree sheet
be prepared accordingly.

DECREE

Suit for permanent restraining the defendant from interfering in the tenancy rights of plantiff in
respect of the above mentioned property and further restraining the defendant from interfering in
the user, possession ,business and enjoyment of plantiff over the premise in dispute as a lawful
tenant , in any manner and further defendant be also restrained from forcibly dispossessing the
plantiff from tenanted premises except in due course of law and further suit for permanent
injunction against the defendant restraining her from causing any damage to the roof or walls or
any part of the tenanted shop in any manner and also from demolishing the tenanted shop roofs,
walls and chajja projection or any part thereof in any manner and be also restrained from
blocking or storing any water over the roof of tenanted shop intentionally or otherwise and from
causing any seepage of water in to the tenanted shop of plantiff in any manner.

Suit presented on 13-07-015

Value for the purpose of court fee 25/-

Value for the purpose of jurisdiction fee 200/-

This suit coming on this 22nd day of May 2017 for final disposal before me( Nimit Kumar, Civil
Judge) in the presence of Sh .R.K Sanghi, advocate for plantiff and Sh. R.K Mehta advocate for
defendant. It is ordered that the suit of the plantiff is hereby dismissed. However plantiff cannot
be dispossessed except the procedure established by law.
 10

CIVIL SUIT- II

IN THE COURT OF MS. SUSHMA, CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIVN.),

NARNAUL (UID No. HR-0399)

CNR No. HRNR02-001466-2016

CIS no. CS-1813-2016

Civil Suit no. 187 of 2016/2017

Date of Institution: 28.09.2016/24.11.2017

Date of decision: 31.01.2020

Smt. Kavita age 40 years wife of Rajesh son of Hari Singh by caste Harijan
(Chamar) R/o VPO Gujarwas Tehsil Mandi Ateli District Mohindergarh-
123021.

………..... Plaintiff

VERSUS

Muni Ram @ Mani Ram son of Sheodan by caste Harijan (Chamar) R/o VPO
Gujarwas Tehsil Mandi Ateli District Mohindergarh-123021.

………….Defendant

Suit for Declaration, Permanent Injunction & Possession

Present: Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Advocate for plantiff

Sh. BS Yadav, Advocate for defendant.

 11

FACTS OF THE CASE

PLANTIFF’S VERSION

That Udmi Ram, Bhagu Ram, sons and Sarbati daughter of Mangal son of Balla by caste Harijan
resident of village Gujarwas had been recorded as owners in possession of Khasra No.273 area
measuring 6 marla situated in village Gujjarwas. In the year 1983, Gram Panchayat of Village
Gujarwas had built a Harijan colony by building one room for each allottee and thus total ten
rooms were built by way of resolution dated 27.09.1983. There was ten allottees namely Jai
Ram, Jug Lal Sons of Mangal son of Kanha, Rampal son of Har Chand, Gopi, Sheo Chand,
Leela sons of Kehar, Sheodan son of Ram Karan, Nand Ram son of Mulki, Chiranji, Prabhu son
of Mangtu. One of the condition in building of that colony as well as allotment of rooms was that
in case the land of any person has been included in that colony, such land owner would be given
land or price in lieu thereof. Another condition was that Sheochand and Leela Ram would give
eight marla land to Mangal son of Kanha out of their Guwara. In building of that colony, a part
of land of Udmi Ram son of Mangal bearing Khasra No.273 (06) was included. However, neither
any alternate land nor any price was given to Udmi Ram by the Gram Panchayat or by the
allottee. Therefore, Udmi Ram filed a civil suit for removal of this encroachment and said suit
was decreed. In execution petition No.56 of 1998/2003, the warrant of demolition was issued and
the encroachment was removed from Khasra No.273 (06) and execution was consigned on
16.12.2006. It is submitted that Udmi Ram died on 25.04.2007 and his estate devolved upon his
legal heirs namely Satpal, Dharambir sons and Savitri, Uma, daughters and Kisturi widow of
Udmi Ram in 1/18th share each and Vijender, Sanjay sons and Suman daughter and Kaushalya
widow of Dharampal son of Udmi Ram jointly for 1/18 share. Similarly estate of Bhagu Ram
devolved on his legal heirs namely Amar Singh, Lal Chand, Ajit sons of Bhagu Ram jointly
1/3rd share on demise of Bhagu Ram. In this way, Sarbati D/o Mangal for 1/3rd share and three
legal heirs of Bhagu Ram for 1/3rd share and legal heris of Udmi Ram (except Uma and Savitri
holding 1/9th share) for 2/9th share sold away their total 8/9th share in plot comprised in Khasra
No.273 (06) to plaintiff by way of registered sale deed No.108 dated 25.04.2016 and delivered
the possession to the plaintiff on the spot. Since then, plaintiff is continuing as owner in
possession of 8/9th share in Khasra No.273 (06). She got demarcated the land from retired Naib
Tehsildar on 14.05.2016. It is submitted that the abovesaid plot having dimension of 9 karam in
east, 11 karam in west, 5 karam each in North and South and is bounded as under:

In East: Plot No. 272

In West: Plot No. 274,276 and Rasta No.275

In North: Thorough Fare

In South: Agriculltural Land for others

 12

It is also submitted that plot bearing Khasra No.276 (05) situated in Village Gujjarwas belonged
to Smt. Santo Devi and Vidya Devi daughters of Narayan for one half share each vide mutation
No.1769 dated 22.06.2016. As per the mutual settlement and partition between Smt. Santo Devi
and Vidya Devi for this property, Smt. Vidya Devi was continuing as owner in possession of 2-
1/2 marla in western side and Smt. Santo Devi was continuing as owner in possession of 2 1⁄2
marla in eastern side. Thereafter, Santo Devi sold away her half share of Khasra No.276 (05) to
plaintiff by way of registered sale deed No.692 dated 23.06.2016 and delivered the possession of
eastern part to the plaintiff, which is bounded as under:

In East: Plot No. 273 of the Plantiff

In West: Remaining half western part of Plot No. 276 of Vidya Devi

In North: Thorough Fare

In South: Land of Birbal S/O Prem Chand

That plaintiff got to know that the western half part of khasra no.276 (05) to the extent of 21⁄2
marla belonging to Smt. Vidya Devi has been encroached upon by Satish S/o Leela Ram R/o
Village Gujarwas. Therefore, the plaintiff got conducted demarcation of khasra no .276(05) from
Mahabir Singh Yadav, Rtd. Naib Tehsildar on 09.09.2016 in which it was found that defendant
has encroached upon easternsouthern part of khasra no. 276(05) to the extent of 2 karam in east,
2 karam in west, 3 karam in north and 3 karam in south total 01 marla. It is also submitted that
there is one more khasra no.274 in village Gujarwas which is lying vacant at present. Murli son
of Harchand had filed a civil suit no.179 RT of 2007/ 2012 against Nand Ram son of Mulki Ram
and Mani Ram son of Sheodan for possession of khasra no.274(05). The said suit was dismissed
vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.2013. Murli had filed civil appeal against judgment and
decree dated 18.12.2013 in which it was held that allotment of khasra no.274 (05) to the plaintiff
was not proved rather it was proved that Gram Panchayat of Gujarwas constructed houses which
were given to Harijans including Nand Ram S/o Mulki Ram and Sheodan father of Maniram and
it was admitted case that khasra no.274 belonged to Gram Panchayat and the plea of adverse
possession of the then defendants was left aside. In this way, judgment and decree of trial court
merged into the judgment and decree of appellate court. It is also submitted that Mani Ram along
with legal heirs of Nand Ram son of Mulki Ram filed a civil suit No.724 of 2016 for declaration
and injunction with regard to khasra No.274 against Rajesh (husband of the plaintiff) and in that
suit, Rajesh made statement on 07.09.2016 that he will not interfer in khasra no.274 rather
Rajesh and Smt. Kavita would raised construction in their khasra no. 273 & 276. That suit is
pending before the civil court. In these circumstances, it is clear that defendant has no concern
with ownership and possession of khasra no.276 in any manner. However, since last some time,
the defendant encroached upon 1 marla area of khasra no.276 in easternsouthern part
unauthorizedly and illegally as shown in demarcation report dated 09.09.2016. The plaintiff
requested the defendant many times to vacate the encroached portion and hand over the vacant
 13

possession of khasra no.276 to the plaintiff. But the defendant did not accept the request of the
plaintiff.

DEFENDANT’S VERSION

That Udmi Ram, Bhaguram and Sarbati daughter of Mangal son of Balla were continuing as
owner in possession ofkhasra no.273 area measuring 6 marla. It is submitted that Gram
Panchayatof village Gujarwas got constructed a house and gave to the father of thedefendant.
The Gram Panchayat gave possession of khasra no.274 area measuring 5 marla to the father of
the defendant. The Gram Panchayat also got constructed a room in the said khasra number and
gave to the deceased Nand Ram. Sheodan and Nandram were remained in possession on the
abovesaid portions of khasra no.274 during their lifetimes and after their death, the defendant
and legal heirs of Nandram namely Ramesh, Satpal, Om Parkash are continuing in possession of
the same. That sale deed no.108 dated 25.04.2016 is illegal, null and void and is not binding on
the defendant. It is submitted that no possession was given to the plaintiff in pursuance of above-
said sale deed because the said land pertains to khasra no.274 on which Sheodan and Nandram
were continuing in possession since the year 1983 and after their death, the defendant and legal
heirs of Nandram are continuing in possession over the same. The demarcation report filed by
the plaintiff is wrong and against the spot. It is also submitted that Santo Devi wrongly executed
a sale deed no.692 dated 23.06.2016 to the plaintiff in which dimensions are also wrongly
mentioned. The demarcation report dated 09.09.2016 is also wrong and against the spot. The
defendant did not make any encroachment over 1 marla land as mentioned in the report and the
possession of the defendant is continuing since the year 1983. It is also submitted that the
plaintiff filed a civil suit no.724 of 2016 and get possession of khasra no.274 area measuring 4
marla forcefully. Now the defendant cannot enter in his house as the plaintiff constructed a gate
over khasra no.274. The appellate court also hold the possession of defendant and Nandram and
it is clear that the plaintiff forcefully took possession. It is also submitted that vide judgment and
decree dated 14.02.2013, the defendant and Nandram was found in possession over khasra
no.274 by way of adverse possession and appeal of the same was also dismissed on 18.12.2013.
The husband of the plaintiff also made wrong statement before the court and the plaintiff and her
husband forcefully constructed boundary wall on khasra no.274. It is denied that the defendant
encroached 1 marla land of khasra no.276.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration and permanent injunction,
as prayed for in the plaint?

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?

3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit?
4. Relief
 14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is continuing as owner in possession of
8/9th share in khasra no. 273 (0-6) khewat no. 328 khatoni no. 420 vide sale deed no. 108 dated
25.4.2016 and 1/2 share of Khasra no. 276 (0-5) in eastern side khewat no. 325 khatoni no. 417
situated within revenue estate of village Gujarwas through sale deed no. 692 dated 23.6.2016.
The defendant has no concern with the suit property but the defendant had encroached 1 marla
land of the plaintiff in Eastern- Southern portion of khasra no. 276 (0-5) illegally as evident from
the demarcation report. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that defendant had
encroached 1 marla land in Eastern-Southern portion of khasra no. 276 (0-5) illegally. To prove
the fact of encroachment, the plaintiff has examined local commission who demarcated the
Khasra no. 276(0-5) on 9.9.2016. He proved application for demarcation, demarcation report,
site plan and attendance list. In his report, he mentioned that Muniram has made encroachment
upon easternsouthern part of khasra no.276(05) to the extent of 2 karam in east, 2 karam in west,
3 karam in north and 3 karam in south i.e. over total 01 marla land by constructing a house.
Therefore, it is prayed that the plaintiff be declared as owner in possession of the suit property
and defendant be restrained from raising construction and interfering into the possession of the
suit property and vacant possession of the encroached area be handed over to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant did not encroach any
area of khasra no.276(0-5) as alleged by the plaintiff. The demarcation report filed by the
plaintiff is not legal and against the spot and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. With
these submissions, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff should be dismissed.

JUDGEMENT

The trial judge after hearing the contentions made by learned counsels for both the parties and
have gone through the case record very carefully and minutely. My issue wise finding runs as
under:

ISSUE NO.1

The onus to prove this issue is upon the plantiff as per maxim “Affirmative non – neganti
incumbit probation” i.e. the burden of proof lies on the person who assert not on whom who
denied. To prove this issue learned counsel for the plantiff contended that the plaintiff is
continuing as owner in possession of 8/9th share in khasra no. 273 (0-6) khewat no. 328 khatoni
no. 420 vide sale deed no. 108 dated 25.4.2016 and 1/2 share of Khasra no. 276 (0-5) in eastern
side khewat no. 325 khatoni no. 417 situated within revenue estate of village Gujarwas through
sale deed no. 692 dated 23.6.2016. The defendant has no concern with the suit property but the
 15

defendant had encroached 1 marla land of the plaintiff in Eastern- Southern portion of khasra no.
276 (0-5) illegally as evident from the demarcation report. On the other hand, the counsel for the
defendant argued that the defendant did not encroach any area of khasra no.276(0-5) as alleged
by the plaintiff. The demarcation report filed by the plaintiff is not legal and against the spot and
therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. With these submissions, it is prayed that the suit of the
plaintiff should be dismissed.

To prove her case, the plaintiff has examined her power of attorney Rajesh (husband of plaintiff)
in his evidence in which he supported the facts of the plaint. He stated that he purchased khasra
no. 273 and 276 through registered sale deeds, it is proved that plaintiff has purchased 8/9 share
i.e. 5 marla 3 sarsai land in khasra no. 273(0-6) and 1⁄2 share i.e. 2.5 marla land in khasra no.
276(0-5) and possession of the same was given to the plaintiff by the seller. Hence, it can be said
that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. The defendant took the plea that the
alleged sale deeds were wrongly executed but the defendant has failed to lead any evidence in
this regard.The onus of prove, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the
presumption. Reliance can be placed upon Prem Singh and others Vs. Birbal and others
2006(2) HRR 363 (SC). In the instant case, the defendant has not been able to rebut the said
presumption. Hence the issue is decided in favour of plantiff and against defendant.

ISSUE NO.2 AND 3

The onus to prove these issues was upon the defendant. These issues were neither pressed, nor
discussed by the learned counsel for defendants during the course of arguments. Hence, all these
issues are decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.4 (RELIEF)

In view of aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed with no order as
to cost. A decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiff that she is owner in possession
of 8/9 share in khasra No.273(0-6) comprised in khewat No.328 khatoni No.420 and 1⁄2 share
i.e. Eastern portion of 2 1⁄2 marla out of khasra no.276(0-5) comprised in khewat No.325 khatoni
No.417 situated in village Gujarwas. A decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the
plaintiff to the effect that the defendant is restrained from raising any kind of construction on suit
property and also interfering in the possession, user and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit
property and a decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that the
defendant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of one marla land situated in Eastern
Southern portion of khasra no.276(0-5) to the plaintiff within the period of three months, failing
which the plaintiff is at liberty to take the possession through the process of law.
 16

CRIMINAL CASE – I

IN THE COURT OF MS. SUYASHA JAWA, JUDICAL MAGISTRATE

FIRST CLASS , NARNAUL

CIS No.: CHI/1933/2013

CRIMINAL CASE NO.: 131RT OF 2013/2013

UNDER SECTIONS: 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B OF IPC, 1860

STATE OF HARYANA

VERSUS

1. DURGA PRASAD S/O PRAHALD SINGH, CASTE BRAHMIN, R/O

AANTRI, PS NANGAL CHAUDHARY
2. RAM SINGH NUMBERDAR S/O SHEORAM , CASTE GURJAR, R/O
VILLAGE BIHARIPUR, PS NANGAL CHAUDHARY
3. KAILASH S/O RAM SWAROOP , VCASTE GURJAR, R/O AANTRI,
PS NANGAL CHAUDHARY
4. GINDORI DEVI W/O SUBE SINGH, CASTE GURJAR, R/O
BHAGWADI KHURD, PS BEHROR, DISTT. ALWAR RAJASTHAN

PRESENT: Sh. Sudhir Yadav Learned APP for the State assisted by Learned
Counsel for Complainant Sh. S.N. Sharma

Accused Durga Prasad and Gindori on bail with learned

Defence counsel Sh. R.K. Mehta

Accused Kailash on bail with Learned Defence Counsel Sh. O.P. Yadav

Accused Ram Singh on bail with Learned Defence Counsel Sh. Anil
Chaudhary
 17

FACTS OF THE CASE

That on 25-10-2010, a Complaint uder section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was
received from learned JMIC, Narnaul stating to get an FIR registerd in the matter in respect of
Complaint of Bimla daughter of Prahald against accused persons under sections 420,467,468,471
120b of Indian Penal Code, 1860 .In her complaint, it was mentioned that the Complainant is
Biswedar at village Bhagwadi, Khurd Tehsil Behror, Rajasthan and married to one Ramanand
Sharma S/O Ramji Lal. She stated that Accused No. 1 was her real brother and is a clever
minded person, and a cheatster and an evil intentioned man, and other accused person being
members of his gang. It is stated that accused persons conspired with each other and attempted to
grab the land of Complainant.It is stated that the accused no. 1 Durga Prasad got the real sister of
the complainant Gindori Devi presented as Bimla and got a fake General Power of Attorney
dated 14-06-2002 executed and registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Nangal Chaudhary, to
which accused no.2 and 3 being Ram Singh Namberdar and Kailash stood as Attesting
Witnesses. The said general power of attorney was got registered at Vasika No.18 dated 14-06-
2002.Thereafter accused persons entered in to a transaction with respect to land of Complainant
being Khewat No.34, Khatoni No.38, Kila 18, total measuring 75 kanal,15 marlaas per
Jamabandi for year 1998-99, Village Aantri,73/1515 Munt kila measuring 3 kanal 13 Marla for a
sum of Rs.52000/- by entering into sale deed Vasika no.959 dated 5.08.2002. This way, by
intending to cause wrongful gain to themselves, the accused persons carried out the
aforementioned transaction to prejudice the Complainant by cheating upon her and gaining
wrongfully therefrom Gindori was found to be illiterate and hence, was not added as an accused
by complainant.On finding a prima facie case against accused persons under sections
419,420,467,468,471,120B of IPC,1860, they were charge –sheeted on 11-06-2013 by my
Learned Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the complainant is able to prove that accused persons got a fake General Power
of Attorney?
2. Whether the accused persons are liable to be convicted under the provisions of Indian
Penal Code, 1860?

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

1. Section 420- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever

cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a
 18

valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
2. Section 467-Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.—Whoever forges a document
which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which
purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to
receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money,
movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance
or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the
delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with
1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
3. Section 468- Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending
that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
4. Section 471-Using as genuine a forged 1[document or electronic record]— Whoever
fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any 1[document or electronic record] which
he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged 1[document or electronic record], shall
be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such 1[document or electronic
record].

Section 120B- Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,

2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall,
where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]
5.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Arguments duly advanced by learned counsel for complainant Sh. S.N Sharma stating that the
existence of the General Power of Attorney impersonation of Complainant by Gindori and the
existence of sale deed Vasika No.959 dated 5.08.2002 for a sum of Rs.52000/- and proved the

same. It is stated that it is a direct evidence of accused persons engaging in forging the said
documents to prejudice the Complainant intending to cheat upon her and further carrying out
transactions in respect of the Complainant causing wrongful loss to her. It is further submitted
 19

that the prosecution case is duly proved it is urged that accused persons are liable to be
convicted.

On the other hand Learned Counsel for accused persons have argued stating that case at hand has
not been adequately proved on record by the prosecution, in as much as, allegations leveled
against accused persons are with respect to Gindori impersonating her sister being Complainant
and fabricating General Power of Attorney . It is further submitted that it is not clear why the
secondary evidence in respect of lost document on record was led by the prosecution, for proving
the said documents at hand. In such light, it is urged that the offences charges with have not been
duly proved against the accused persons by the prosecution and hence, accused persons are liable
to be acquitted.

JUDGEMENT
The learned trial judge after hearing the arguments duly advanced by learned counsel for both
the sides and thoroughly considered. It shall be relevant to appraise the ingredients of charges
leveled against accused persons. Section 419 of IPC, 1860 mentions of cheating by
impersonation in as much as the accused persons by pretending to be Complainant, engaged in
transacting upon her property, and deliverd the same fraudulently in favour of Hemraj and Rattan
Singh Section 420 of IPC, 1860 states of dishonest inducement for delivery of property
belonging to complainant, Section 467 of IPC,1860 regarding forging General Power of Attorney
pretending to be complainant and acting on her behalf, knowing the same to be used for the
purpose of cheating as envisaged under section 468 of IPC, 1860. Further section 471 of IPC,
1860 states knowingly using the aforementioned General Power of Attorney knowing the same
to be forged and inter-se conspiring with one another, in commission of aforementioned
offences.After comprehensive appraisal of testimonies led on record, ingredients of offences
involved and charged with stand duly proved and established against accused persons. Hence,
they are hereby convicted under aforementioned sections.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

The accused vide their separate statement have stated that they are poor and aged persons and
sole bread earners of their families and lenient view be taken.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Complainant argued that in view of the grave
allegations, they be sentenced to harsh punishment.

Taking into the account the facts of the case, this court is of the view that the accused are not
entitled to benefit of probation. They are sentenced to simple imprisionment of two years each
under sections 419,420,467,468,471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and fine of Rs5000/- each in
form of punishment. The said imprisionment shall run concurrently under all sections. In default
of payment of fine accused shall suffer further simple imprisionment for a period of one month.
 20

CRIMINAL CASE – II

IN THE COURT OF ASHOK KUMAR-III, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST

CLASS, NARNAUL UID-HR0329

CNR No: HRNR03-002278-2015

CIS No. CHI-724-2015

Criminal Case No. 125RT of 2015

Under Section: 420, 506 & 34 IPC

STATE OF HARYANA

VERSUS

1. Vishnu @ Mintu S/o Parbhati Lal, Caste Jogi, R/o village Khariwara,
P.S. Ateli, District Mahendergarh (Haryana)
2. Jogender Yadav S/o Mukesh Yadav, Caste Ahir, R/o House No. 773,
Ward No. 21, Om Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana

………....ACCUSED

PRESENT: Sh. Anshuman Siag, APP for the State assisted by Sh. R.K Mehta,
Advocate.

Accused Vishnu on bail with Sh. J.S. Dhillon, Advocate

Accused Jogender on bail with Sh. V.K. Shandilya, Advocate

 21

FACTS OF THE CASE

That accused Vishnu received an amount of Rs. 66,00,000/- from the complainants( Rajendar
S/O Gidhari Lal, Surender S/O Gheesa Ram, Bhoop Singh S/O Ram Narayan, Dashrath S/O
Rohtash) for securing the jobs for their wards in SSC, Constable, Patwari and NLIC. Accused
No. 1 made the above-said amount available to the accused No. 2 and 3. They have obtained the
above-said amount in the name of one Deputy D.E.O., Mukesh Yadav, Gurugram. But the
accused persons could not secure any job for their children. When they asked for the refund of
their amount or to secure them a job anywhere, accused persons put off the matter on one pretext
or the another and ultimately they refused. They also threatened to kill them. Accused No. 2,
Sumer Singh J.E. gave a cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- to the complainant on 23.01.2014 and
promised to repay the remaining amount within 2-4 days but he did not refund the same till date.
On 19.02.2014, accused Sumer Singh Yadav, Vishnu Jogi, Jogender and Mukesh Deputy D.O.
called them in Rewari where they asked him to return the cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- as they will
make the payment in cash. But the accused persons neither gave any cash nor any cheque. At
that time Rajender S/o Girdhari lal was also with complainant Surender. Accused persons have
committed cheating and fraud against them. Therefore, appropriate action be taken against them.
On the above said application FIR under section 406,420,506 and 34 IPC, 1860 was got
registered.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether the accused persons are liable to be convicted under the provisions of Indian
Penal Code, 1860?
2. Whether the complainants are able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt?

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 420- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and

thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
 22

Section 506-Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of

criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any
property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 34-Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention-When a

criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is argued by learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the
accused persons have committed cheating and fraud against the complainants. Accused persons
have received an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- from the complainants for securing jobs for their
kins. But since the accused could not secure a job, complainants asked for refund of their
payment. Accused persons have not refunded the payment till date and they also threatened to
kill the complainants and they proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
Hence, the accused be convicted under Section 420, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

Learned counsel for the accused contended that first of all this Court is having no jurisdiction to
try and entertain the present FIR. Moreover, finding no truth in the allegations of the
complainants, initially, the FIR was canceled. All the complainants have made the payment to
the accused persons out of their free Will. They were never induced by the accused to make the
payment. There was no intention of cheat the complainants. Complainants have made the
payment after examination only. It is argued that during investigation accused Neetu has been
found innocent by the police whereas there are similar allegations against him. No wrongful loss
has been caused to the complainants as per Section 23 of IPC. Complainant were never legally
entitled to receive the amount from the accused persons and hence no illegal act of the
complainants can be enforced. It is argued that allegations in the complaint, are general in nature.
The complainants have also failed to explain the source of their income. No recovery was
effected from the accused persons. Moreover, no cheque allegedly given by the accused to the
complainant was produced before the Court. With respect to the Electronic evidence, no
certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is produced. The original instruments of
recording was also not sent to FSL for examination. . On the basis of the above-said arguments
Ld. Counsel for the accused persons prayed for acquittal of the accused persons.
 23

JUDGEMENT

After hearing the rival contentions of learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant as well as learned defence counsel and after going through the oral as well as
documentary evidence produced on record, I am of the view that though prosecution has
examined as many as fourteen witnesses in this case but it has miserably failed to bring home the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.

First of all, it is the case of the prosecution that as per the complaint, the accused persons
received money from the complainants for securing Government jobs for their wards. But since,
the accused persons ultimately failed to secure the jobs, the complainants demanded their money
back from the accused persons and on their refusal to pay back the same, the present complaint
was made on which ultimately the present FIR was registered on 10.03.2014.

From the contents of the application , it has come up that the complainants have contracted to do
an illegal act with the accused persons. They also passed some consideration in this regard. But
when the above-said illegal object was not achieved, the present complaint was filed. It means
the complainants were also the part of the conspiracy to secure a Government job for their wards
and when they failed in their evil design, they started playing victims. The complainants entered
into an illegal agreement with the accused persons and hence, the same cannot be enforced. The
complainants were hands in gloves with the accused persons to secure Government job for their
kins/relatives. They have paid the amount to the accused persons when the first promised act of
supplying the solved question paper was performed by the accused persons. From the above-said
circumstances, it has also become clear that the intention of the accused persons was not to cheat
the complainants at the time of making the promise of securing Government jobs for their
kins/relatives. In order to establish a case of cheating under Section 420 IPC, it is necessary to
prove that the accused was having a dishonest intention at the time of agreement/promise. Such
dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that they could not subsequently fulfill
the promise. In the absence of dishonest and fraudulent intention at the time of
agreement/promise, no question of committing offence under Section 420 IPC arises

As far as the criminal intimidation is concerned, there are no specific allegations of any threat to
kill in the complaint. The allegations are quite general in nature and have been made just to add
to the allegations regarding cheating and fraud by the accused persons. In order to make out a
case under Section 506 IPC, it is necessary that the alleged threat must cause an alarm in the
mind of the victim. The conditional threat is no threat in the eyes of law.

In view of the above-said discussion, I am of the considered view that no agreement to commit
an illegal act can be enforced. The complainants were equally involved with the accused persons
in the act of securing Government jobs through illegal means and hence, any agreement or
promise in this regard is void. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons are
guilty of committing the offences punishable under Section 420 and 506 IPC against the
 24

complainants. Since, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubts, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused person, they are hereby
acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Since, the prosecution has miserably failed to
bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts, by giving benefit of doubt to the
accused person, they are hereby acquitted from the charges levelled against them.