Delhi District Court
Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd vs Anuradha Chowdhary And Ors on 29 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Civ Suit 10716/16
CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. .... Plaintiff
Vs
ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS ....Defendant
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII rule 6 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC").
BRIEF FACTS
2. Briefly stated, plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant seeking the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration for declaring the illegal GPA dated 17.04.2014 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and registered with the District Sub-Registrar-IVA, Shahdara, Delhi (defendant no. 3) on 17.04.2014 vide registration no. 273 in Book no. 4 Vol. No. 630 on pages 78 to 80 as void. The plaintiff also seeks relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant no.1 & 2, their agents, successors and assigns from interfering or obstructing the peaceful use, enjoyment, possession and ownership of the suit property and to restrain the defendant no. 2 from acting on the GPA executed in his favour by defendant no. 1 on 17.04.2014 and to restrain defendant no. 3 from registering any documents regarding transfer of property __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 1 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL Date:
GOEL 2024.07.29 15:22:31 +0530 by defendant no. 2 in relation to the suit property bearing no. A-12, Kailash Nagar Colony, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi. The plaintiff also seeks the relief of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant no. 2 to deposit in the court the abovesaid GPA dated 17.04.2014 and to direct the destruction thereof. The present suit has been filed on the ground that the defendant no. 1 had executed a GPA of the suit property on 17.04.2014 in favour of defendant no. 2 fraudulently claiming herself as the Director of the plaintiff company and actual owner and in possession of the suit property. That the defendant no. 1 has never been the director of the plaintiff company at any point of time and defendant no.1 was never authorized by plaintiff company to execute any transfer document of the suit property. That the plaintiff company is the owner and in possession of the suit property. That the GPA executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is forged and fabricated document executed in connivance with the defendant no. 3.
That the plaintiff also got registered an FIR No. 742/2014 U/s 420/467/468/471/448/120B IPC against the defendant no.1, her husband and her son. Hence, the present suit filed.
3. In the WS, the defendant no.1 stated that the plaintiff company was incorporated in the year 1959 with initial share capital of 15 shares. Ten shares were owned by Smt. Satya Chowdhary and five by Kishore Lal Sachdeva. That the plaintiff company increased its shareholding by 560 shares. That 500 shares were allotted to Late Sh. Brahm Perkash which he transferred to M/s Shaheed Memorial Society. That he remained the president of the said society till the year 1993 and after his death, his wife Smt. Satya Chowdhary became the President of the society and remained president till 2005 and thereafter her son Sh. Ajay Chowdhary became president of the society. That on 10.03.2006, Smt. Satya Chawdhary and the society called the extra-ordinary General meeting of the company and removed three directors of the company namely Sh. Om Prakash Sachdeva, Sh. Ankur Sachdeva and Smt. Promila Kishore and four new directors were appointed namely Ajay Yadav, Arjun Chowdhary, Abdul Haq Frahan and __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 2 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2024.07.29 15:22:34 +0530 Surender Pal. That these three removed directors namely Sh. Om Prakash Sachdeva, Sh. Ankur Sachdeva and Smt. Promila Kishore filed an injunction suit bearing C.S. (OS) No. 1906 of 2006 titled as "Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. Shaheed Memorial Society and Ors" before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the basis of false averments misleading the Court and obtained an ex-parte interim injunction order dated 06.10.2006 against the society and the four directors appointed by the members and shareholders of the company on 10.03.2006. That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had vacated the said ex-parte injunction order vide order dated 06.08.2009 on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to place on record resolution passed by the society showing its consent to sell its shares and also a resolution passed by the society appointing an individual to sell the shares which is mandatory requirement to sell the shares. That the plaintiffs of the said suit filed an FAO No. 337/2009 against the order dated 06.08.2009 and the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 06.11.2009 set aside the order passed by the single bench restraining order against the defendants of the said suit. That the plaintiffs have obtained the said order on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and by making false statement and by playing fraud upon the courts of law. That the defendant no. 1 is duly appointed Director of the plaintiff company by virtue of EGM held on 25.08.2010 and same was duly intimated to the plaintiff by moving an application under Order I Rule 10 in the above mentioned suit before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
4. The plaintiffs have filed the present application u/o XII Rule 6 praying for decree on the basis of admissions made by the defendant no.1 in her WS and documents placed on record along with the WS. It is stated by the plaintiffs in the application that defendant no.1 with her WS herself filed the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 06.10.2006 passed in an injunction suit bearing C.S. (OS) No. 1906 of 2006 titled as "Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. Shaheed Memorial Society and Ors", whereby the defendants of the said suit were restrained from representing themselves as __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 3 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL Date:
GOEL 2024.07.29 15:22:37 +0530 shareholders/representatives of the plaintiff company. That the defendant no. 1 also filed the order of Division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 06.11.2009 whereby the respondents of the said FAO, their agents and employees are thus restrained from representing themselves as shareholders or directors of the said company and consequent thereto are restrained from acting on behalf of the company by using any letterhead, bank accounts or dealing with the assets of the company in any manners whatsoever and cannot be permitted to file any statutory forms or returns on behalf of the company. That the defendant no. 1 is not only associate/relative of Ajay Yadav but has also been representing him and other defendants as their advocate in the contempt proceedings of the suit "Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. VS. Shaheed Memorial Society and Ors"and she is very well aware about the proceedings of the court and the fact that the defendant no.1 has no right to sell the suit property, therefore, a decree under Order XXII Rule 6 shall be passed against the defendant.
5. Defendant no.1 filed reply to the present application u/o XXII Rule 6 filed by the plaintiff opposing the said application. It has been averred that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the claimed directors of the plaintiff company who had filed the present application had become directors after forging the documents and share transfer deeds qua the 500 shares of M/s Shaheed Memorial Society Regd. And these claimed directors already removed in the year 2006 and 2007. That the filing of order dated 06.10.2006 must be construed as a general averment regarding the passing of order by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and cannot be construed as an averment which may warrants an order under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. That the said order is not binding on the defendant no. 1 as defendant no. 1 is not the party to that suit. That it is trite law that an order is not applicable on the party who is not the party to the suit and legal proceedings pending before the court of law. That the plaintiff has concealed the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in same injunction suit bearing C.S. (OS) No. 1906 of 2006 titled as "Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. Shaheed Memorial Society and Ors" dated 04.02.2019 and 07.03.2019, wherein the application filed by the defendant under Order __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 4 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2024.07.29 15:22:40 +0530 XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was allowed and plaintiffs as well as defendants are restrained from dealing, alienating, encumbering or parting with any of the assets or properties of plaintiff no.1 company, till the decision of the suit. That the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said order and the said order was modified by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the extent that if the plaintiff wish to sell any of the properties, it will inform the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 relied upon certain judgments which are mentioned in the reply to the application, which are as follows :-
(a) S. M. Asif Vs. Virendar Kumar Bajaj (2015) 9 SCC 287.
(b) Karan Kapoor Vs. Madhuri Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4545 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (CILVIL) No. 13800 of 2021), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(c) M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. M/s Jasbir Singh Chadha(HUF) & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4344 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No. 2689 of 2009).
(d) Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No. 1048 of 2020).
The said application is not opposed by any other defendant.
6. Heard. Perused.
FINDINGS
7. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff, Order XII rule 6 CPC needs to be quoted:
"Judgment on admission: (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing the court may at any stage, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 5 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2024.07.29 15:22:43 +0530 regard to such admissions...."
Thus, Order XII rule 6 CPC enables a court to a pass a decree on the basis of admissions without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties.
8. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 does not define the expression "admission". Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 defines admission as a statement made in the oral, documentary or electronic form suggesting an inference to a fact-in-issue or relevant fact. Thus, an admission is a statement made by the parties to a legal proceeding, either oral, documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests an inference with respect to any fact-in-issue or relevant fact. In case of clear admission which cannot even entertain the possibility of a different view, a summary judgment on admission can be passed without trial.
9. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dinesh Sharma Vs. Krishna Kainth, RFA 293/2021, CM APPLs. 26906/2021 & 26908/2021 categorically held that :-
"Para no.27: The law with regard to the interpretation given to Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is well settled in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Himani Alloys (supra), and also in terms of the judgment by the Division bench of this court in the case of Anupama Bansal Vs. Suraj Bhan Bansal & Anr., RFA(OS) 46/2019. The Division Bench of this Court has in Paragraphs 20 to 24 held as under:-
"20. The law on the aspect as to what should constitute "pleadings or otherwise", the words used under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, for passing a judgment on admission, is well settled. There is a line of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the High Courts that if there is sufficient material on record including express/implied admissions, that can validate passing of a decree on the basis of such admissions, there is no impediment for the Court to accelerate the suit proceedings __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 6 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL Date:
GOEL 2024.07.29 15:22:50 +0530 to a closure by passing a decree on admitted claims.
21. The scope and ambit of Order XII Rule 6 CPC was discussed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India reported as AIR 2000 SC 2740, where it was observed as under:-
"12. As to the object of the Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the Legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, it is stated that where a claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. ‟We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed." (emphasis added)
22. In ITDC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Chander Pal Sood and Son reported in 84 (2000) DLT 337 DB, a Division Bench of this Court interpreted the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC in the following words :-
"17. Order 12 Rule 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court. Under this rule the Court may at any stage of the suit either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without determination of any other question between the parties can make such order giving such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing...."
23. Another Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to interpret the expression, "otherwise" used in Order XII Rule 6 CPC in Rajiv Srivastava vs. Sanjiv Tuli and Anr. reported as 119 (2005) DLT 202 (DB) and observed as below :-
"10. The use of the expression "otherwise" in the aforesaid context came to be interpreted by the Court. Considering the expression, the __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 7 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2024.07.29 15:22:55 +0530 Court had interpreted the said word by stating that it permits the Court to pass judgment on the basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also de hors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court. If one of the parties‟ statement is recorded under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement which elucidates matters in controversy. Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy exists between the parties. Admission if any is made by a party in the statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the Court can proceed to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein. ............."
24. In Delhi Jal Board vs. Surendra P. Malik reported as 104 (2003) DLT 151, a Division Bench of this Court had laid down the following tests for pronouncing a judgment on admission:-
"9. The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit,
(ii) whether such admissions are plain, unambiguous and unequivocal,
(iii) whether the defense set up is such that it requires evidence for determination of the issues and (iv) whether objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are inconsequential making it impossible for the party to succeed even if entertained. It is immaterial at what stage the judgment is sought or whether admissions of fact are found expressly in the pleadings or not because such admissions could be gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment."
(emphasis added)"
10. Coming to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has filed the present application on the ground that the defendant no. 1 has admitted the restrainment order in preliminary objection of her written statement and her written statement reveals that defendant no. 1 is not at issue with the plaintiff at any fact and the averments made by the __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 8 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2024.07.29 15:22:58 +0530 plaintiff in the plaint have been admitted by the defendant no.1. The defendant no. 1 nowhere in her written statement denied the knowledge or not passing of restrainment order dated 06.10.2006 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in suit bearing CS No. 1906/2006 titles as "Capital land Builders Pvt Ltd. & Ors Vs. M/s Shaheed Memorial Society Regd & Ors" whereby the defendants of the said suit are restrained from representing themselves as shareholders/representatives of the plaintiff company and of Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 06.11.2009 in FAO against the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vacating the order dated 06.10.2006, whereby the respondents of the said FAO, their agents and employees are thus restrained from representing themselves as shareholders or directors of the said company and consequent thereto are restrained from acting on behalf of the company by using any letterhead, bank accounts or dealing with the assets of the company in any manners whatsoever and cannot be permitted to file any statutory forms or returns on behalf of the company. The defendant no. 1 herself filed both the orders along with her written statement. The defendant no. 1 only averred that these orders have been obtained by the plaintiff company on the basis of forged and fabricated document and by making false statements before the court and by playing fraud with the Court. The main point is that the defendant no. 1 admitted the passing of abovesaid restrainment order by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and knowledge of these restrainment order, despite that the defendant no. 1 executed the GPA Dated 17.04.2014 in favour of the defendant no. 2. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 argued that the defendant no. 1 was not the party to the suit bearing CS No. 1906/2006 titled as "Capital land Builders Pvt Ltd. & Ors Vs. M/s Shaheed Memorial Society Regd & Ors" before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and therefore, these restrainment order are not binding on the defendant no.1. After persusal of the memo of parties, it is found that the defendant no. 1 is not the party to that suit. However, Ld Counsel for the plaintiff argued in rebuttal that the defendant no.1 is the member of M/s Shaheed Memorial Society Regd, who is defendant no. 1 in suit bearing CS No. 1906/2006 titles as "Capital land Builders Pvt Ltd. & Ors Vs. M/s Shaheed Memorial Society Regd & Ors" before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and when the __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 9 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2024.07.29 15:23:02 +0530 defendant no. 1 is restrained by these restrainment order, then its members are also restrained from from representing themselves as shareholders or directors of the said company and consequent thereto are restrained from acting on behalf of the company by using any letterhead, bank accounts or dealing with the assets of the company in any manners whatsoever and cannot be permitted to file any statutory forms or returns on behalf of the company. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff also filed the copy of certified copy of copy of minutes of General body meetings of M/s Shaheed Memorial Society showing defendant no. 1 as the member of M/s Shaheed Memorial Society.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 argued that the filing of restrainment order does not amount to admission on the part of defendant no. 1. This argument of Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 holds no water as the mentioning of the restrainment orders in the written statement and filing of these orders along with the written statement amount to admission of defendant no.1 that she had the knowledge of these order at the time of executing the GPA in favour of defendant no.2. It is a well settled law that any transfer of the property after the stay/restrainment order of the Court is a nullity.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 also argued that the plaintiff has concealed the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in same injunction suit bearing C.S. (OS) No. 1906 of 2006 titled as "Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. Shaheed Memorial Society and Ors" dated 04.02.2019 and 07.03.2019, wherein the application filed by the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was allowed and plaintiffs as well as defendants are restrained from dealing, alienating, encumbering or parting with any of the assets or properties of plaintiff no.1 company, till the decision of the suit. That the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said order and the said order was modified by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the extent that if the plaintiff wish to sell any of the properties, it will inform the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. These orders were passed after the execution of GPA dated 17.04.2014 by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and moreover, these orders itself restrained the defendants also from dealing with the assets of the plaintiff company.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 10 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2024.07.29 15:23:05 +0530 It is a settled law that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is an enabling provision that confers discretion to the Court for ensuring speedy justice on admission to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim. As noted above, such admissions can be in the form of pleadings or otherwise i.e., in the documents, correspondence, etc. placed on record. It can be oral or in writing; the admission can be constructive admission as well as without it being specific or expressive, which can be inferred from vague and evasive denials in the written statement while responding to specific pleas taken in the plaint. I must state that the appellant / defendant has relied upon the judgments which have been referred to above. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down in the said judgments in as much as, (i) a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is not a matter of right, rather is a matter of discretion of the Court; (ii) to constitute a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admission, the Trial Court has to see the overall effect of the pleadings and documents. For a judgment on admission to be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Court has to see as to whether the admission of facts is plain, unambiguous, and unequivocal and go to the root of the matter, which would entitle the other party to succeed; (iii) if the issue raised, involve the mixed question of fact and law, the same has to be adjudicated by way of evidence; (iv) the discretion conferred under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. From the reading of the aforesaid judgments, it cannot be disputed that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC can also be invoked when the objections raised against rendering a judgment are such, which goes to the root of the matter or whether the objections are inconsequential, making it impossible for the party to succeed, even if entertained.
In case in hand, the defendant no. 1 has clearly stated and mentioned about both the restrainment order dated 06.10.2006 and 06.11.2009 in her written statement and also filed these orders along with the written statement, which shows and amounts to admission that she has knowledge of both the restrainment order at time of executing the GPA dated 17.04.2014 and also very well knows that she could not execute the GPA of __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 11 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed MAYANK by MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date: 2024.07.2 15:23:08 +0530 the suit property and despite that fact, she had executed the GPA dated 17.04.2014 of the suit property and also by doing this, she would be liable for contempt of Court. Therefore, the GPA of the suit property executed by the defendant no. 1 post restrainment order is liable to be declared as illegal, invalid, non-est and not binding upon the plaintiff company and no rights thereunder accrue to the defendant no. 2 or any other person claiming through or under him. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment and decree forthwith having regard to the admissions of the facts made by defendant no. 1 in her written statement and the documents filed by her along with the written statement.
RELIEF
11. In light of the above, all the ingredients required for passing a decree of possession under Order XII rule 6 CPC stands satisfied in the present suit. Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC is hereby allowed and suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in the following terms:-
a) The GPA dated 17.04.2014 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and registered with the District Sub-Registrar-IVA, Shahdara, Delhi (defendant no. 3) on 17.04.2014 vide registration no. 272 in Book no. 4 Vol. No. 630 on pages 76 to 80 of the suit property i.e. one residential plot bearing no. A-12, (Plot no. 12 in Block-A), land measuring area 500 sq. yards i.e. 418.06 sq. mtrs out of Khasra no.
853,863,897,1132-33/892,855/1861/864,1017/865,868,876,877,878, situated in the abadi of Kailash Nagar Colony, in the area of Village Gokalpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi, is declared as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and no rights thereunder have accrued to defendant no. 2 or any other person claiming through him.
b) The defendant no.1 & 2, their agents, successors and assigns are hereby restrained from interfering or obstructing the peaceful use, enjoyment, possession and ownership of the suit property covered under this GPA.
c) The defendant no. 2 is hereby restrained from acting on the abovesaid GPA executed in his favour by defendant no. 1 on 17.04.2014. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 12 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK GOEL GOEL Date:
2024.07.29 15:23:12 +0530
d) The defendant no. 3 is hereby restrained from registering any documents regarding transfer of property by defendant no. 2 in relation to the suit property.
e) The defendant no. 2 is hereby directed to deposit in the court the abovesaid GPA dated 17.04.2014.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
Announced in open Court. GOEL Date: 2024.07.29
15:23:16 +0530
On this 29th July, 2024 (MAYANK GOEL)
This Order contains 13 pages JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA,
and is signed by me. KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Civ Suit 10716/16 Page No. 13 of 13 CAPITAL LAND BUILDERS PVT LTD. Vs. ANURADHA CHOWDHARY AND ORS