by the evidence of the independent witness Mr. Sardari Lal who has categorically said that he was a witness at the time when the initial payment of Rs.50,000/- and the payment of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid in his presence. The cross-examination does not in any manner challenge his testimony or establish anything to the contrary. The evidence of Sh. Sardari Lal, DW-1 has to therefore be taken into consideration and on the basis of his evidence, it is clear that the property was in fact sold to the Defendant and possession was thereafter handed over to the Defendant. Finally, this being a suit for possession, the court would have to give utmost importance to the possession letter which is an admitted document which states categorically, without any caveats whatsoever, that the entire consideration amount has been received . DW-2/1 having been accepted by the Trial Court, there is no reason why it should not be believed that the sale consideration of Rs.5,65,000/- was agreed between the parties out of which Rs.50,000/- was in fact paid as Bayana. This court has to also take judicial notice of the fact that during the said period i.e., sale transactions in Delhi were taking place with documents such as GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will etc., until the decision of Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt Ltd v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656 came to be passed by the Supreme Court.
