Delhi District Court
Sh.Vasant Inder Nangia vs Smt. Duni Chand on 13 February, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF DIG VINAY SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (CENTRAL) 04, THC, DELHI
Judgment reserved on : Based on written arguments.
Judgment delivered on : 13.02.2013
CS No.410/08/84 (New) Unique Case ID No. 02401C5215402004
Date of institution : 27.07.1984
Sh.Vasant Inder Nangia
S/o Sh.Inder Sain Nangia
R/o A-1/87, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110016. Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Smt. Duni Chand
Mother of Late Sh. Chunni Lal.
2. Smt. Satya Wati
Wife of Late Sh. Chunni Lal.
3. Sh. Narinder Kumar
Son of Late Sh. Chunni Lal.
4. Sh. Surinder Kumar
Son of Late Sh. Chunni Lal.
5. Sh. Virender Kumar
Son of Late Sh. Chunni Lal.
6. Smt. Sudesh Diwan
daughter of Late Sh. Chunni Lal.
7. Sh.Sameer Babbar
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page1 of 49 h.l.
CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia
2
Grandson of Late Sh. Chunni Lal.
All Resident of
A-1/121, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110016. ... Defendants.
AND
CS No.412/08/89 (New) Unique Case ID No. 02401C0342582005
Date of Institution : 23.03.1989
1 Sh.S.V. Babbar
Alias Surinder Kumar Babbar
S/o Late Sh. Chunni Lal Babbar,
R/o A-1/121, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.
2 Sh. N.K. Babbar
S/o Late Sh. Chunni Lal Babbar,
R/o A-1/121, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029. Plaintiffs.
Versus
Sh.Vasant Inder Nangia
S/o Sh.Inder Sain Nangia
R/o A-1/16, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.
Second Address:
Project Manager
Titan Watches Ltd.
71, Sona Towers
Miller Road,
Bangalore 560052 ... Defendant.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page2 of 49 h.l.
CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia
3
JUDGMENT
1. These are two cross-suits under suit No.410/08 (old No.1101/1984) and suit No. 412/08 (old No.784/89).
1.1. The first suit is filed by Vasant Inder Nangia seeking specific, performance of an agreement to sell dated 08.08.1977, executed between him (through attorney) and Sh. Chunni Lal (the predecessor in interest of the defendants in this suit). This suit was filed on 12.07.1984.
1.2. The second suit is filed by two of the LRs of Chunni Lal against Vasant Inder Nangia. This suit is for possession of the property based on a building/construction agreement entered into between Chunni Lal and Vasant Inder Nangia of the same date i.e. 08.08.1977. This second suit was filed on 16.03.1989.
1.3. It may be mentioned here that the second suit has been filed by the two sons of deceased Chunni Lal claiming that other LRs of Chunni Lal do not claim any right in the suit property as Chunni Lal bequeathed the property in favour of them on 26.03.1982. Chunni Lal expired on 20.04.1982. He left behind seven legal heirs. I may be mentioned here that Smt. Duni Chand who was mentioned as defendant No.1 in the first suit, being mother of Chunni Lal had expired prior to the institution of that suit.
1.4. These two cross-suits are based on two agreements entered into CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page3 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 4 between Chunni Lal and Vasant Inder Nangia on the same date i.e. 08.08.1977. It is not in dispute that there is an agreement to sell and a building/construction agreement qua the suit property of the same date. Vasant Inder claims that it was the agreement to sell which was to be acted upon and the building agreement was sham, whereas LRs of Chunni Lal claims that the building agreement was to be acted upon and the agreement to sell was a sham document.
2. The claim of Vasant Inder Nangia is that, he entered into an agreement with Chunni Lal to purchase the property No.A-1/16, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi on 08.08.1977, through his father as an attorney. The said property was leased out to Chunni Lal as a sub-lessee by the DDA. The property measures 503.47 sq. yards. Chunni Lal agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.1.70,000. The agreement to sell was registered before Sub-registrar. An amount of Rs. 78,000/- was paid to Chunni Lal, through a demand draft at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Possession of the property was handed over to Vasant Inder by Chunni Lal along with original documents of lease etc. Thereafter further payments towards sale of the property were made to Chunni Lal in the form of Rs.9,600/- through cheques from August 1977 to July 1978; Rs.12,000/- in cash from August 1978 to July 1979, for which Vasant Inder does not possess any receipts and; Rs.27,600/- from August 1979 to June 1981 in cash, for which again Vasant Inder does not possess any receipt. It is claimed that a total sum of Rs.1,27,200/- was paid to Chunni Lal between August 1977 to June 1981.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page4 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 5 2.1. Vasant Inder claims that under the agreement to sell, it was agreed that he will construct a building on the suit land which might increase stamp duty to be paid over and above the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/-. It is claimed that both parties agreed that liability of Vasant Inder to pay expenses on stamp duty shall be limited to Rs.12,000/-, and any amount payable towards stamp duty over and above this amount shall be paid by Chunni Lal.
2.2. Subsequently Chunni Lal who was to obtain requisite permission from DDA and other authorities for selling the suit land, failed to obtain the permission within the stipulated period of one year from the date of agreement. Chunni Lal agreed to extend time to enable him to obtain the requisite permission for sale of property and for getting the documents executed and registered. However, Chunni Lal further delayed obtaining of requisite permissions.
2.3. In April, 1980 Chunni Lal informed Vasant Inder that he had filed an application with DDA seeking necessary permission and to confirm his bona-fides, he gave a signed set of copies of the documents including copy of prescribed application form and undertaking etc. to Vasant Inder. Vasant Inder claims that after taking possession of the property towards part performance of contract one and a half storey building of A grade was constructed by him by spending an amount of Rs.3.5 lacs. The construction was completed around August 1978 and occupation certificate was obtained in 1978. Vasant Inder claims that he had paid the ground rent of the land to the DDA after the date of agreement to sell as CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page5 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 6 also property taxes to the municipal authorities.
2.4. Besides agreement to sell, which was a registered one, Chunni Lal executed two power of attorney in favour of Vasant Inder and his father on 08.08.1977. Under the said attorneys Vasant Inder was authorized to take necessary steps to construct the suit property. Prior to it Vasant Inder had executed a power of Attorney dated 02.08.1977 in favour of his father enabling him to enter into agreement to sell with Chunni Lal qua the suit property and to do all necessary and consequential acts.
2.5. Under the agreement to sell, it was also agreed that a sum of Rs.60,000/-
out of Rs.1,70,000/- will be retained by Vasant Inder which was to be paid to DDA towards unearned increase in respect of the said plot of land with specific understanding that any amount in excess of Rs.60,000/- if required to be paid to DDA shall be borne by Vasant Inder. As a safety measure this amount of Rs.60,000/- was deposited in fixed deposit in the joint name of Chunni Lal and Vasant Inder, but later on the amount was withdrawn by him with consent of Chunni Lal as by that time permission to sell had not been applied.
2.6. It was also agreed that Rs.80,000/- out of total sale consideration would be deposited with M/s Escorts Ltd and subsequently the said amount was withdrawn and Rs.60,000/- was deposited with M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. for a period of one year and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited with M/s Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. The deposit was to be made for a period of one year and it was agreed that interest on both the deposits would be CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page6 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 7 received by Chunni Lal for one year subject to the condition that the said amount received by Chunni Lal was to be considered as having being paid towards the sale consideration, if the sale deed was not executed within one year. It was also further agreed that the said amount of Rs.80,000/- would be retained by Vasant Inder after one year and Chunni Lal would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month for a maximum period of three years from the date of withdrawal of the fixed deposits. The entire amount thus paid was to be considered as part payment towards sale consideration. It is claimed that a sum of Rs.49,200/- in all, including the interest received from the company, was paid to Chunni Lal.
2.7. It is claimed that simultaneously another agreement of construction was entered into, which was not to be acted upon and which was a sham transaction. It is claimed that this sham agreement was merely by way of a collateral security to secure the amount spent by Vasant Inder towards spending money in acquiring and constructing the property. It is claimed that at the relevant time Vasant Inder was holding an executive post in Taj Group of Hotels and neither he nor his father had anything to do with construction business, therefore the second agreement of construction of building was a sham document.
2.8. It is claimed that in fact an excess amount of Rs.17,200/- was paid to Chunni Lal during the period August, 1977 to June 1981, which Chunni Lal had promised to reimburse at the time of purchase of stamp papers for sale deed. Vasant Inder claims that he was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but Chunni Lal CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page7 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 8 turned dishonest and he had sent letter dated 06.07.1981 under registered AD, which was received by Vasant Inder him on 10.07.1981 and replied on 07.08.1981. It is claimed that Chunni Lal turned dishonest due to escalation in market value of property. After receipt of letter dated 06.07.1981, he met Chunni Lal along with all the executed documents by Chunni Lal, upon which Chunni Lal asked him not to send any reply and agreed that he would withdraw the letter. Subsequently the letter was not withdrawn and therefore he had to send the reply dated 07.08.1981.
2.9. Vasant Inder claims that there was no date fixed for performance of contract and therefore, he had no notice for refusal of performance of contract from Chunni Lal till the letter dated 06.07.1981. Subsequently Chunni Lal filed proceedings under Section 20 of Indian Arbitration Act 1940 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Suit No. 4499-A/81, praying for filing of the said building agreement and for reference of the dispute to the sole arbitrator. Vasant Inder claims that he received notice of petition about a month after 23.10.1981, therefore, it was deemed that Chunni Lal refused performance of contract on the day of receipt of notice. On these averments specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.08.1977 is prayed.
3. On the other hand the claim of LRs of Chunni Lal is that, after death of Chunni Lal, the defendant No.4 Surender Kumar @ S.V.Babbar who is son of Chunni Lal alone has a right to contest the suit filed by Vasant Inder and prosecute the suit filed by himself and his brother. It is claimed that Chunni Lal left behind a Will under which S.V.Babbar and his brother CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page8 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 9 Narender Kumar were only beneficiary. Subsequently even Narender Kumar gave an affidavit in terms of partition between them to the effect that S.V. Babbar alone has title to the suit property. It is also claimed that during proceedings under Section 20 of Arbitration Act, vide order dated 25.11.1983 passed under I.A. No.4668 of 1983, this claim was accepted.
3.1. Claim of S.V. Babbar is that the agreement to sell in unenforceable in law as it is barred by limitation. It is claimed that under the Lease deed dated 16.03.1965, through which property was leased to Chunni Lal by DDA, Chunni Lal was not competent to sell, transfer or otherwise part with possession of the suit plot without previous consent in writing of the lessor, which the lessor was not obliged to give for a period of 10 years. It is claimed that the agreement to sell was not be acted upon and it was therefore that Chunni Lal and Vasant Inder did not take any steps as required under the said agreement such as seeking permission from DDA to sell the property; seeking permission from income tax authorities and; seeking permission from authorities established under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Even Vasant Inder did not approach Chunni Lal for enforcement of agreement to sell. It is claimed that the suit for specific performance was filed as a counter blast to the arbitration proceedings initiated by Chunni Lal. It is also claimed that the agreement to sell does not contain signatures of Vasant Inder but it contains signatures of his father and even the alleged attorney in favour of father of Vasant Inder does not pertain to the agreement to sell in question.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page9 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 10 3.2. It is claimed that in fact Chunni Lal did not possess adequate financial resources required for construction of building on the suit land, which was to be constructed before a particular date, therefore, Chunni Lal entered into an agreement with Vasant Inder as to construction of property. The said agreement of construction was typed on 27.07.1977, whereas the agreement to sell was typed on 28.07.1977.
3.3. The agreement to sell was in fact a collateral security to the building contract. Father of Vasant Inder who had lot of financial resources with him under took to raise construction on the suit property on behalf of Chunni Lal as a contractor as per sanctioned plan approved in the name of Chunni Lal and that too under strict supervision of Chunni Lal. Vasant Inder and his servants and agents were merely allowed to enter and remain on the suit plot for the purposes of construction of building and it in no way authorized them to retain possession of the suit property. The construction was to be carried out strictly under the instructions and supervision of Chunni Lal. After completion of building Vasant Inder was to obtain completion certificate in the name of Chunni Lal. Towards construction Vasant Inder was entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs.1.5 lacs and it was agreed that after completion certificate of the suit property is obtained, Vasant Inder will give a notice in writing to Chunni Lal asking him to pay Rs.1.5 lacs, which Chunni Lal was bound to pay within one week of receipt of notice.
3.4. Under Clause 7 of the agreement of construction Vasant Inder had a right to use and occupy the building and enjoy the rent and profit thereof until CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page10 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 11 the said amount of Rs.1.5 lac was paid, and till such time Vasant Inder was to be treated as a licensee only. Vasant Inder was not entitled to any interest on the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs.
3.5. Acting on the said construction agreement Vasant Inder sent a letter dated 16.08.1978 to Chunni Lal in which the existence and enforcement of the construction agreement was admitted. Since Chunni Lal could not pay Rs.1.5 lacs to Vasant Inder as requested under letter dated 16.08.1978, the property was let out by Vasant Inder to an Embassy and he received rent and profits for the period of lease.
3.6. Subsequently, vide a letter dated 06.07.1991 Chunni Lal offered to pay Rs.1.5 lacs to Vasant Inder, which was refused. It is claimed that the agreement to sell was a sham document is clear from the fact that in the reply dated 07.08.1991, sent by Vasant Inder, there is no reference of any agreement to sell. It is claimed that agreement to sell was merely a collateral security to secure an amount of Rs.1.5 lacs which was to be spent by Vasant Inder towards construction of property. When Vasant Inder failed to receive Rs.1.5 lacs, a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed. It is claimed that the construction on the suit property was carried out under the direct supervision and control of Chunni Lal who controlled the specification and quality of material and in whose name sanction was obtained. It is claimed that the so called application to DDA by Chunni Lal seeking permission to sell and undertaking etc. are forged documents. It is also claimed that under the agreement to sell an amount of Rs.80,000/- was to be deposited with CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page11 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 12 Escorts Ltd., but was not deposited.
4. Thus, the sum and substance of dispute between the two parties is as to whether the construction agreement entered into between the parties was to be acted upon or it was the agreement to sell which was to be acted upon.
5. It may be mentioned here that the proceedings of the suit of Vasant Inder was stayed and adjourned sine-die on 18.03.1985 due to the pendency of proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940, but subsequently it was revived after the said proceedings under Section 20 of Arbitration Act was withdrawn. The suit was revived in 1995. In between the suit for possession by S.V. Babbar and N.K. Babbar, both sons of Chunni Lal came to be filed on 16.03.1989 and subsequently both the suits were consolidated on 27.11.1989, with an order that evidence will be recorded in suit No. 410 (Old no. 1101).
6. Initially 9 issues were framed in the suit on 28.04.2000. Subsequently on 28.04.2005, the issue No. 5 was reframed and an additional issue was framed. Therefore, after framing of additional issue and reframed issue No.5, the following issues needs to be determined in the suit.
1. Whether late Sh. Chunni Lal and the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell on 08th August, 1977? If so, to what effect?
2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the agreement to sell? If so, to what effect?
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page12 of 49 h.l.
CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 13
3. If issue No.2 is proved in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of the agreement?
4. Whether there was a building contract dated 8th August, 1977 between the parties? If so to what effect?
5. If issue No.4 is proved in the affirmative, what is its effect? OPD.
6. If issue No.4 is proved in the affirmative, whether the defendants had at any time tendered the amount representing the cost of construction of the building? If so to what effect?
7. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property by virtue of the Builders' lien? If so to what effect?
8. Whether the defendant (plaintiff in suit No.784/89) is entitled to possession?
9. Whether the claim of the plaintiff made in the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
10. To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled?"
7. In support of its case Vasant Inder examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited following documents; original agreement to sell dated 8th day of August, 1977 as Ex.PW-1/1; Original receipt dated 08.08.1988 executed by Sh. Chunni Lal as Ex.PW-1/2; original perpetual lease deed dated 16.03.1965 executed between the President of India and late Sh. Chunni Lal with the original site plan as Ex.PW-1/3; The arrangement letter addressed by PW-1 to Chunni Lal, purportedly forming part of covenants of the agreement to sell as Ex.PW-1/4; photocopy of application by CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page13 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 14 Chunni Lal to DDA for permission to sell the property as Ex.PW-1/5; Original undertaking of Sh. Chunni Lal dated 10.04.1980 as Ex.PW-1/6; another undated undertaking of Sh.Chunni Lal as Ex.PW-1/7; original Power of Attorney dated 02.08.1977 executed by PW-1 in favour of his father Late Inder Sain Nangia as Ex.PW-1/8; original power of attorney by Chunni Lal in favour of Late Inder Sain Nangia dated 08.08.1977 as Ex.PW-1/9; Original power of attorney dated 08.08.1977 by Chunni Lal in favour of PW-1 as Ex.PW-1/10; affidavit of Sh.S.L. Verma dated 21.04.1982 as Ex.PW-1/11; a letter dated 08.08.1977 regarding deposit of Rs.80,000/- with M/s Escorts as Ex.PW-1/12; original statement of fixed deposit account with Delhi Cloth Mills as Ex.PW-1/13; copy of certificate issued by Sh. Chunni Lal on 14.09.1981 as Ex.PW-1/14; letter from Late Sh. Chunni Lal to PW-1 showing his inability to pay for the construction of building as Ex.PW-1/15; original letter dated 06.07.1981 sent by Chunni Lal to the plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/16; copy of reply dated 07.08.1981 as Ex.PW-1/17; and the plaint of suit filed by PW-1 Vasant Inder Nangia for specific performance as Ex.PW-1/18.
7.1. The testimony of this witness is in lines to the averments contained in the plaint of suit No. 410 and WS of suit No. 412.
7.2. Vasant Inder also examined PW-2 Sudhir Kumar from Bank of Baroda to prove certain bank records but the records were stated to be destroyed. PW-2 Krishanan Anand (wrongly renumbered) from Income Tax to prove certain records of income tax which also were destroyed by the CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page14 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 15 time the witness was examined; PW-4 S.V. Sood and PW-5 S.K. Aggarwal from bank of Baroda who also stated that records were destroyed by the time they were examined; PW-6 Sh. Ravinder Kumar from Sub-Registrar's office who stated that records has been sent to Archives Department by the time he was examined and PW-7 Satya Pal from the Archives, who stated that agreement to sell registered on 09.08.1977 was not pasted on the concerned register.
8. On the other hand S.V. Babbar examined himself as DW-1 and deposed in lines to the averments contained in his written statement of the first suit and plaint of the second suit.
8.1. Sh. S.V. Babbar also examined DW-2 Kamal Didwania from DDA to prove that the suit property still stands in the name of Chunni Lal and as per records no letter or application seeking permission to sell the suit property has been received from Chunni Lal and that it was only Chunni Lal who was doing correspondence with DDA qua the suit property.
8.2. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that after death of Chunni Lal none of his LR filed any document pertaining to the suit property and there are certain communications on record of DDA viz. letter dated Ex.DW-2/P2 to P9, written by DDA to Sh. N.K. Babbar w.e.f. 1984 till as late as 19.08.2005. He also admitted that the Challans towards ground rent of the property were deposited through letters of Smt. Anjala Inder CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page15 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 16 Nangia (mother of Vasant Inder) vide Ex.DW-2/P10 to P18. He also admitted that except the rent challan deposited by Smt. Anjala Inder Nangia there is no other ground rent challan. He also admitted that construction on the suit plot was initially to be completed till 15.03.1967 which came to be extended from time to time lastly up to 18.08.1978, upon paying of composition fees, vide letter Ex.DW-2/P23. Admittedly the case of mutation of property, pursuant to death of Chunni Lal, was kept in abeyance due to lack of submission of documents and declarations by the successors of Chunni Lal. This witness also admitted that for mutation it was necessary for legal heirs to submit an affidavit that the property has not been sold, which was not submitted.
8.3. From the side of Chunni Lal, Sh. Feroz Khan was examined as DW-3 from Assessment and Collection department to show that Sh. Chunni Lal was still recorded as owner for the purposes of house tax. However this witness has admitted that correspondence with regard to house tax was done by Vasant Inder Nangia and first assessment was in July 1979 under ExDW-3/P1, wherein the assesse was represented by Mr. Inder Sain Nangia. He also admitted that other communications were done by Vasant Inder Nangia and his father under Ex.DW-3/P2 and P3.
8.4. DW-4 Nirmal Marwah from the electricity supply department deposed that the complete record as to the electricity connection in the suit property is not traceable after privatization from Delhi Vidyut Board to Private distributors. She however, deposed that as per record the CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page16 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 17 connection was applied on 11.09.1978,but she was not in possession of original application form.
8.5. DW-5 Rajesh Kumar from Delhi Jal Board was examined to prove that connection stands in the name of Chunni Lal and he stated that he does not know who is making payment of water charges.
8.6. DW-5 Petrus Tigga from MCD (wrongly renumbered) did not bring any record and is therefore not of any importance.
9. Issue wise findings are as follows.
10. Issue no.2 & 4, are taken up together being interconnected and also because decision of other issues will be consequential to decision of these two issues.
10.1. Perusal of pleadings and evidence of both the sides would reveal that execution of agreement to sell and execution of the construction agreement, both dated 8.8.1977, are not in dispute. The claim of Vasant Inder is that the agreement to sell was to be acted upon and the construction agreement was a sham document which was entered into only for the purposes of security. The other side claims that it was the construction agreement which was enforceable and the agreement to sell CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page17 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 18 was not to be acted upon. The agreement to sell and the construction agreement are proved on record as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/D1, respectively.
10.2. Though, the LRs of Chunni Lal sought to raise a plea that agreement to sell was not executed but this document is not only registered, pleadings and evidence of LRs of Chunni Lal reveal that primarily their plea is to the effect that the document was unenforceable and not that it was not executed at all.
10.3. In order to claim that the agreement to sell is unenforceable, it was pointed out that it is not signed by Vasant Inder. But then it is the case of Vasant Inder that his father as an attorney signed it on his behalf. Law doesn't prohibit execution of an agreement to sell by an attorney for and on behalf of principle which in the present case is by the father for and on behalf of Vasant Inder.
10.4. The attorney executed by Vasant Inder in favour of his father Ex.PW1/8 was claimed to be not an attorney for this agreement to sell. It is argued that the attorney Ex.PW1/8 authorised father of Vasant Inder qua some other agreement to sell dated 2.8.1977 and not the agreement to sell in question which is dated 8.8.1977. This argument is without force for the reason that agreement to sell was in fact typed on 28.7.1977 and thereafter the date was changed from 28 July 1977 to 8th August 1977, which is evident from Ex.PW1/1. The other documents and correspondences between the two rival sides also reflect a change of CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page18 of 49 h.l.
CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 19 date by cutting and over writing the dates from 28th of July to 8th of August. Even the construction agreement Ex.PW1/D1 reveals change of date from 27.7.1977 to 8.8.1977. These facts point that the negotiations/agreement between the parties took place sometime in the end of July 1977 and ultimately on 8.8.1977 the two disputed agreements were executed.
10.5. In such circumstances, if the power of attorney Ex.PW1/8 contains the date of execution as 2nd August, 1977 and that it refers to some agreement to sell dated 2nd August, 1977, it does not create doubt that this attorney was not executed by Vasant Inder in favour of his father for entering into the agreement to sell in question with deceased Chunni Lal.
10.6. Objection of LR of Chunni Lal as to the proof of document Ex.PW-1/12 has to fail since this document is signed by none other than father of PW-1 Vasant Inder Nangia, and PW1 was well conversant with signatures of his father and was therefore, competent to prove this document.
10.7. Turning to the question as to which of these two agreements were to be acted upon and which one of them was either a sham document or a collateral security, one important fact may be noted that the agreement to sell is a registered document before the Sub-Registrar whereas the construction agreement is not. DW-1 admitted that Sh. S.L. Verma was a witness to the agreement to sell and that he also appeared before the Sub-Registrar indicating that the agreement to sell was duly registered. It is also pointed out by Vasant Inder Nangia that in the order sheet dated CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page19 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 20 08.04.2008 it is recorded that the counsel for S.V. Babbar admitted the agreement to Sell Ex.PW-1/1. Though, law doesn't require compulsory registration of an agreement to sell but this fact coupled with the fact that an amount of Rs.78,000/- was paid by Vasant Inder Nangia to deceased Chunni Lal through a bank draft on 8.8.1977 goes to show that actually agreement to sell was the main agreement which was to be acted upon. It was sought to be argued that the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/D1 was not in fact registered. In law an agreement to sell is even otherwise not required to be registered as by itself it does not create any right in an immovable property and it is only an agreement, agreeing to sell and purchase the property in future.
10.8. Receipt of amount of Rs.78,000/- is not disputed. DW-1 admitted having received Rs.9600/- over and above Rs.78,000/- The receipt Ex.PW1/2 was also executed on 8.8.1977 acknowledging receipt of Rs.78,000/-. Payment of this amount towards sale of property was sought to be denied by LRs of Chunni Lal claiming that it was a loan amount. Neither Ex.PW1/2 records that this amount was taken as a loan nor there is any other document to substantiate this claim, admittedly. Regarding the receipt Ex.PW-1/2, acknowledging receipt of Rs.78,000/- there was no clear denial of DW-1 that it does not bear signatures of Chunni Lal. An evasive reply was given by DW-1 stating that he cannot say if this document bears signatures of his father Chunni Lal. Thus, actually there is no denial of signatures of Chunni Lal on Ex.PW-1/8. There is an admission of DW-1 that Rs.78,000/- was received on 08.08.1977 by his father Chunni Lal as he admitted in his cross-examination that this CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page20 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 21 amount was received at the time of building contract at the residence of one Advocate. He also admitted that behind page No.2 of agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/1 it is written that Chunni Lal received this amount from the vendee in presence of father of Vasant Inder.
10.9. Had the agreement to sell been a sham document. There was no reason for Chunni Lal to have accepted Rs.78,000/- and Rs.9,600/-. Acceptance of these payments indicates that building contract was not to be acted upon. It is not the case of LRs of Chunni Lal that these amounts were received as security or in any other nature which would have justified receipt of these amounts.
10.10. Now, one wonders as to if the construction agreement, under which Vasant Inder Nangia was to construct building for and on behalf of Chunni Lal, was the actual agreement to be acted upon, why this amount was paid? Had the claim of Chunni Lal or his LRs been true that the land was given to Vasant Inder for constructing a building for an amount of Rs.1.5 Lakh for and on behalf of Chunni Lal, which was subsequently to be recovered from Chunni Lal, the payment of Rs.78,000/- made to Chunni Lal remains absolutely unexplained.
10.11. Besides this, Clause no.6 of the agreement to sell, to the effect that sale was to be concluded within one year from the date of agreement, indicates that the agreement to sell was to be acted upon. Clause no. 9 of this agreement to sell Ex.PW1/1 makes a specific provision that if the vendor fails to perform his part of contract, the vendee can approach CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page21 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 22 court for specific performance. If this agreement was not to be acted upon, there was no need to have this clause and the clause no. 6 in this agreement.
10.12. Again, under the agreement to sell it was agreed that a sum of Rs.
60,000/- would be paid to DDA towards unearned increase in respect of the plot. If agreement to sell was not to be acted upon, there was no requirement of including this provision also. The claim of Chunni Lal and his LRs that the agreement to sell was a collateral security falls flat for the reasons mentioned above and for the reason that against a construction agreement in which Vasant Inder was to spent Rs.1.5 Lakh, the amount could have been secured in the construction agreement itself by including a clause to that effect. Or the property could have been simply mortgaged. Or an agreement to take loan could have been simply executed. There was no need for having entered into an agreement to sell, had it not been intended to be acted upon.
10.13. Indeed, both the parties when executed into these two agreements also executed certain other letters/documents which are mutually destructive, but one thing would be very clear that the inter se communications between the two rival sides as revealed in Ex.PW1/4, 1/6, 1/7, 1/9, 1/10, 1/12, 1/15, Ex.DW1/3 would show that all these documents were executed sometime in July 1977 and subsequently the dates of 8.8.1977 were inserted on these documents. Some of these documents remained undated. All these documents were prepared and signed at the time when the two rival agreements were executed.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page22 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 23 10.14. The contention of LRS of Chunni Lal that Chunni Lal did not apply for necessary permission to sell the property from DDA, income tax authorities or authorities under The Urban Land(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, indicates that agreement to sell was not to be acted upon, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it can be for any number of reasons such as Chunni Lal turning dishonest due to escalation of price of property, which indeed is located in one of the poshest colonies of Delhi where property prices escalated manifold. Under the agreement to sell, Chunni Lal was supposed to obtain permission and not the vendee. In any eventuality, a vendee cannot be granted such a permission by the authorities since the permission has to be granted to vendor and not a vendee.
10.15. Contention of LRs of Chunni Lal that under the perpetual lease Ex.PW1/3, the property could not have been sold without permission also does not hold water for the reason that non-obtaining of permission could have at the most invited imposition of penalty and it was not recorded in the perpetual lease that such a sale, without permission, would be void ab initio. All that was required under the perpetual lease was that prior permission shall be obtained and the lessor (DDA) shall be within his rights to refuse such a permission. The clause that such a permission cannot be granted for ten years, except under exceptional circumstances, was no more in force at the time when the agreement to sell was entered into, as the perpetual lease was executed on 16.3.1965 and the period of ten years stood expired on 16.3.1975, whereas the agreement to sell in question was entered into more than two years thereafter.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page23 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 24 10.16. Vasant Inder has relied upon a document Ex.PW1/15 which as per Vasant Inder was sent by Chunni Lal to him on undisclosed date but this document would reveal that it was typed on 28.7.1977, and subsequently the date of agreement was changed to 8.8.1977. This document also appears to have been executed on 28.7.77 along with other documents and not much reliance can be placed on this document except the fact that it also indicates that on the day when two rival agreements were entered into, certain set of letters and documents were got typed and signed.
10.17. Besides these facts, it has come in evidence that Vasant Inder was merely a student aged about 19 years in the year 1977 and therefore, there was no reason for Chunni Lal to have entered into construction agreement with Vasant Inder. No proof has been led by the LRs of Chunni Lal to show that Vasant Inder or his father was into the business of construction as Contractors in or about 1977. This again raises suspicion as to the construction agreement.
10.18. One would still wonder as to why the construction agreement was entered into when the parties wanted to sell and purchase the property? Answer to this question is found in the perpetual lease between DDA and Chunni Lal. Under the perpetual lease, the property was to be constructed in a time bound manner. Initial period of construction was two years from the date of lease which subsequently came to be extended from time to time and lastly up to August 1978. It is an admitted fact that Chunni Lal was unable to arrange funds for construction and thus, he appears to have CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page24 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 25 entered into an agreement to sell. The need of entering into building contract/construction agreement appears to have arisen on account of the fact that there was very little time left between the last date of completion of construction and the time required for seeking permission under the lease. Prior permission was necessary which would have certainly taken time and in order to enable the vendee Vasant Inder to purchase and construct the property, the construction agreement appears to have been entered into so that the construction work can be conducted simultaneously and smoothly, as a sanction plan was also required for it from DDA along with other requirements. This reasoning attempts to explains as to why construction agreement was also entered into by the two sides.
10.19. Much emphasis has been laid by the LRs of Chunni Lal on the point that had there been an agreement to sell between the parties, Vasant Inder Nangia would have mentioned about it in reply to the notice dated 06.07.1981 sent by Chunni Lal to him. Receipt of this notice by Vasant Inder Nangia is not denied. This notice was replied vide Ex.PW-1/D4 on 07.08.1981 by Vasant Inder Nangia and admittedly in this document there is no mention of execution of any agreement to sell. However, in this reply it is mentioned that there were various liabilities and obligations required to be performed by Chunni Lal under various documents executed by Chunni Lal. The contention of Vasant Inder Nangia that this reply was carefully worded in order to avoid penalty of cancellation of allotment by the DDA, had DDA come to know about sale of property without permission, has considerable force and seems to the probable cause as CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page25 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 26 to why there was no mention in this reply regarding agreement to sell. In any eventuality agreement to sell is not denied and in fact the claim of LRs of Chunni Lal is that it was only a collateral security, therefore not much weight can be attached as to the absence of mention of agreement to sell in this reply of Vasant Inder Nangia.
10.20. In order to emphasize that the construction agreement was only enforceable and not the agreement to sell, the LRs of Chunni Lal has relied upon one document dated 16.08.1978 Ex.DW-1/3,claiming that in this letter father of Vasant Inder admitted about the building contract. As the other letters and communications between the parties were prepared on or about the date of two conflicting agreements, even this letter Ex.DW-1/3, would show that actually it was not written on 16.08.1978. The impression of letters of the typewriter from which the date of 16.08.1978 was typed is clearly different from the impression of other letters in the body of this document. It indicates that the date was inserted in this letter later. Not only this, had this document been actually typed on 16.08.1978, it should have recorded the date of building contract as 08.08.1977, whereas the date of building contract is typed as 28.07.1977 in this letter and thereafter it was changed in somebody's handwriting as to be of 08.08.1977. Had this document been executed on 16.08.1978, there was no reason for this change of date particularly when in the other documents also there is change of date including the agreement to sell and the building contract from 28.07.1977 or 28.07.1977 to 08.08.1977. This fact suggests that even this letter was prepared on or about end of July 1977 together with the agreement to sell or the building contract but CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page26 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 27 now it is sought to be used as executed on 16.08.1978, therefore, this document does not help the LRs of Chunni Lal.
10.21. It is contended that the building contract was typed on 27.07.1977, whereas agreement to sell was typed on 28.07.1977, therefore, the building contract was to be acted upon and not the agreement to sell. Though both these agreements appear to have been typed on 27.07.1977 and 28.07.1977, respectively, but it is an admitted position that both these documents were actually signed on 08.08.1977. The fact that on 08.08.1977 Vasant Inder Nangia personally signed building contract, but signed the agreement to sell through his attorney father on the same day, does not need much attention as it appears that the building contract was sent for signatures to Vasant Inder Nangia, who was at Calcutta at the relevant time, since under signatures of Vasant Inder Nangia on all the pages there are marks 'X'. These marks 'X' reveal that the document was sent to Vasant Inder Nangia for his signatures indicating as to where he has to sign. Had Vasant Inder Nangia been present in Delhi on 08.08.1977, he would have signed the agreement to sell as well as building contract personally and there was no need for him to have signed the agreement to sell through his father.
10.22. S.V. Babbar stressed the point that Vasant Inder Nangia was never present during negotiations and all negotiations were done by his father with Chunni Lal. Not much weight can be attached to this fact as admittedly agreement to sell was signed by Chunni Lal and it was signed by attorney of the Vasant Inder Nangia.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page27 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 28 10.23. It is also argued that Vasant Inder Nangia did not seek cancellation of building agreement Ex.PW-1/D1. But then even S.V. Babbar did not seek cancellation of agreement to sell.
10.24. Vasant Inder Nangia placed reliance upon an affidavit executed by Sh.
S.L. Verma who was the property broker between the two parties and who had witnessed the agreement to sell. He was not examined for the reasons best known to Vasant Inder Nangia. His affidavit Ex.PW-1/11 dated 21.04.1982 was neither executed in presence of Vasant Inder Nangia nor he was conversant with signatures of S.L. Verma. The notary who attested this affidavit was not examined. Therefore Ex.PW-1/11, whose mode of proof was challenged by the LR of Chunni Lal, stands not proved and cannot be relied in favour of Vasant Inder Nangia.
10.25. Admittedly the undertakings Ex.PW-1/6 and 1/7 were not executed in presence of PW-1. Therefore, these two documents also cannot be relied upon. PW-1 admitted that he never sent any letter to Chunni Lal to verify whether the permission was applied or not.
10.26. The circumstance of handing over original perpetual lease to Vasant Inder on 08.08.1978 was sought to be explained by DW-1 stating that it was required for applying for cement, iron, water and electricity' connection by Vasant Inder. I am afraid a lame excuse is sought to be raised as one doesn't require perpetual lease for obtaining iron, cement or other building material.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page28 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 29 10.27. DW-1 admitted that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was fixed deposited in M/s Goetze India Ltd. on 16.08.1977 and that in the earlier proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, in which DW-2 was substituted as the plaintiff upon death of Chunni Lal, one Mr. Rajat Bhandari gave a statement Ex.DW-1/P1. He also admitted that Rs.20,000/- were deposited in the joint name of Chunni Lal and mother of Vasant Inder on 16.08.1977 for a period of one year. This fact also indicates that it was the agreement to sell pursuant to which the amount was deposited and the agreement to sell was the document to be acted upon.
10.28. In cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that the agreement to sell was registered document and that part sale consideration was received before one Sh. S.R. Aggarwal. This admission occurs on page no.1 of cross- examination of DW-1 dated 28.09.2009. He also admitted that the agreement to sell was formalized on 28.07.1977, but it was signed on 08.08.1977 through constituted attorney of Vasant Inder Nangia. This last mentioned admission demolishes the argument of S.V. Babbar that the agreement to sell was unenforceable being not singed by Vasant Inder Nangia or his attorney on the basis of attorney Ex.PW-1/8 dated 02.08.1977, executed by Vasant Inder Nangia in favour of his father.
10.29. DW-1 also admitted that Chunni Lal during his life time did not seek cancellation of agreement to sell or the irrevocable attorneys Ex.PW-1/9 &
10. These two attorneys are duly attested by a Notary Public. Attestation is not denied by the LRs of Chunni Lal.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page29 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 30 10.30. In law under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a presumption as to the genuineness of attorneys. In the case of Kamla Rani and Ors. v. M/s. Texmaco Ltd. AIR 2007 DELHI 147 it was held that; " 33. Authentication by a notary public is a solemn act performed by the notary public whose duty is to ensure that the executant is the person before him and is identified to his satisfaction. Once a document is authenticated by a notary public, it will be presumed that the document was duly executed and was in order. The use of the expression 'shall presume' shows that the section is mandatory and the Court has to presume that all necessary requirements for the proper execution of the power of attorney were duly fulfilled before the notary public. As observed in AIR 1984 (363) (sic) M/s. E. C. and E.Co. Ltd. v. M/s. J. E. Works, if two conditions are satisfied, firstly the power of attorney being executed before a notary public and secondly it being authenticated by a notary public, a presumption would arise under Section 85 about the executant of the power of attorney.
34. Onus would thus lie on the opposite party to prove to the contrary.
35. It is well settled that authentication would mean more than mere execution. Where proof of authentication surfaces, benefit of Section 85 has to be granted.
36. No negative evidence has been brought on record, none has been shown to me by the petitioners.
37. The purpose of Section 85 of the Evidence Act appears to be that a duly executed and authenticated power of attorney can be proved under Section 85 without undue expenses to be incurred by producing the executant thereof or the original board resolution."
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page30 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 31 10.31. DW-1 also admitted in his cross-examination that these two attorneys were executed by Chunni Lal. These facts coupled with the fact of part consideration of Rs.78,000/-, which was admittedly received by Chunni Lal make these attorneys irrevocable and an attorney executed against valid consideration is irrevocable.
10.32. In the case of Vikas Jain Vs. Naresh Kumar, RFA No. 492/2001 decided on 08.02.2012, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, observed as follows;
"5. The documents which were executed by Mr. Prem Chand Jain in favour of respondent/plaintiff dated 7.8.2000 were proved and exhibited before the trial Court as Ex.PW1/E (Agreement to sell), general power of attorney (Ex.PW1/B) and affidavit with respect to handing over of possession (Ex.PW1/C) etc. I may state that the rights which are claimed on the basis of these documents arise under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which gives rights in an immovable property pursuant to the doctrine of part performance. Rights are also created in the suit property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff as per Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872, by which the power of attorney given for consideration is irrevocable. It is relevant to note that these documents were executed before the provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was amended in the year 2001, and where after rights under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 can only be claimed if the document is duly stamped and registered. It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court has preserved rights arising from the doctrine of part performance and CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page31 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 32 an irrevocable power of attorney in the decision of Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 183 (2011) DLT 1(SC) as per paras 12, 13 and 16 of the judgment."
10.33. In the case of Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh Chand and Anr., RFA NO.
358/2000 decided on 09.04.2012, by Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as follows, in Para 3, " A reference to the aforesaid paras shows that unless there is a proper registered sale deed, title of an immovable property does not pass. The Supreme Court has however reiterated that rights which are created pursuant to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 dealing with the doctrine of part performance (Para
12), an irrevocable right of a person holding a power of attorney given for consideration coupled with interest as per Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 (para 13) and devolution of interest pursuant to a Will (para 14).
Therefore, no doubt, a person strictly may not have complete ownership rights unless there is a duly registered sale deed, however, certain rights can exist in an immovable property pursuant to the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872. There also takes place devolution of interest after the death of the testator in terms of a Will."
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page32 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 33 10.34. In the case of Raj Kumari Garg Vs. S.M. Ezaz and Ors., RFA (OS) No. 38/12 and FAO (OS) No.204/2012, decided on 13.08.2012, Delhi High Court observed, "34. Another aspect taken note of in the impugned order and which was canvassed before us arises from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656. The execution of Agreement to sell & purchase coupled with collateral documents like GPA, SPA, Will, etc. has been a common practice in Delhi. The validity of such a practice has been examined in the said judgment and it has been held that the bunch of such documents cannot be recognized as deeds of title, "except to the limited extent of Section 53A of the TP Act". In fact, it has been observed in paras 26 & 27 that the observations of the Supreme Court are not intended in any way to affect the validity and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions and the bunch of documents can continue to be treated as existing agreements of sale which would not prevent the affected parties from getting the registered deeds of conveyance to complete their title. The said bunch of documents can also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under Section 53A of the TP Act. ......."
10.35. The fact of execution of irrevocable power of attorney also indicates that it was the agreement to sell which was to be acted upon CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page33 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 34 10.36. DW-1 also admitted that there is no document on record to suggest that Chunni Lal ever gave any instructions for specifications, workmen ship or quality of material to be used for construction.
10.37. The building contract appears to have been executed to avoid any action from DDA in terminating the lease of the plot for selling it in contravention of perpetual lease. This fact explains the reason behind execution of building contract and no other reasonable ground appears for having executed building agreement along with agreement to sell. If building agreement was to be acted upon, there was no reason to handover possession of the property along with original documents of the property to Vasant Inder Nangia. This fact coupled with the fact of payment of taxes and other charges also indicates that building contract was sham document.
10.38. The document Ex.PW-1/15 was sought to be denied by DW-1, but in his cross-examination he specifically admitted signatures of his father Chunni Lal and claimed that this was one of the document on which signatures were obtained when the document was blank. The claim of S.V. Babbar that signatures of his father were obtained on blank documents, falls flat from the circumstance that even on this document there is a change of date of agreement from typed date of 28.07.1977 to handwritten date of 08.08.1977. Had the signatures of Chunni Lal been obtained on blank document and had this document been prepared later on, the date which would have been mentioned on this document would have been straight away 08.08.1977 and not 28.07.1977 as typed one which was CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page34 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 35 subsequently changed to handwritten date of 08.08.1977. This fact indicates that even this document was prepared on 27/28.07.1977 and subsequently the date was corrected to 08.08.1977.
10.39. The entire claim of Chunni Lal that signatures were obtained on blank paper and for that matter the counter claim of Vasant Inder that he also signed certain blank papers does not hold water as these change of date reflects that all these documents were duly typed sometime in July, 1977 and the dates were handwritten on 08.08.1977 at the time of execution.
10.40. As a result, it is decided that it was the agreement to sell which was entered into and which was to be acted upon and the building contract was not to be acted upon. Issue no. 2 & 4 are consequently decided in favour of Vasant Inder Nangia and against LRs of Chunni Lal.
11. Issue no. 5, after it was reframed on 28.4.2005, is to the effect that if the issue no. 4 is proved in affirmative, what would be its effect? Upon failure of issue no. 4 against LRs of Chunni Lal, it is but natural to hold that the construction agreement cannot be acted upon and thus this issue has to be decided against LRs of Chunni Lal.
12. Issue no. 6, again has to go against the LRs of Chunni Lal since the issue no. 4 has failed against them to the effect that the building contract was a sham document. Once the building contract was a sham document, there is no question of tendering the amount by Chunni Lal to Vasant Inder Nangia towards the cost of construction of building.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page35 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 36
13. Issue no. 7, was whether Vasant Inder Nangia is in possession of the suit property by virtue of builder's lien. It has come in the evidence of DDA officials that it is Vasant Inder Nangia or on his behalf that the ground rent of the property was and is being continuously deposited. Even the completion certificate from DDA was obtained by Vasant Inder Nangia. Had Vasant Inder Nangia being in possession of the property only as a builder's lien, there was no requirement of him obtaining completion certificate and not by Chunni Lal. Though the completion certificate has been obtained in the name of Chunni Lal but it is an admitted fact that the completion certificate was applied and obtained by Vasant Inder Nangia.
13.1 It is not in dispute that the possession of property was delivered to Vasant Inder Nangia, on or about July 1977 or 8.8.1977. The evidence indeed Ipoints out that possession of the property was given to Vasant Inder Nangia in part performance of agreement to sell the property and Vasant Inder Nangia is in possession of the property in the said capacity. Issue No. 7 is accordingly decided against LRs of Chunni Lal and in favour of Vasant Inder Nangia.
14 Issue No. 8. As a necessary consequence of the decision of above mentioned issues, this issue has to fail against LRs of Chunni Lal since they are not entitled to possession of the property. Possession of the property is sought on the ground that there was a building contract between Chunni Lal and Vasant Inder Nangia, pursuant to which Rs.1.5 lacs was offered to Vasant Inder Nangia, which he refused to accept and therefore, LRs of Chunni Lal are entitled to possession of the property. It CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page36 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 37 has been decided above that the building contract was only a sham document.
14.1 In any case, possession of Vasant Inder Nangia is protected under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act. The right under S. 53-A is available against the transferor effecting incomplete transfer and any person claiming under him. In Mahadeva v. Tanabai AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 3854 and in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and another v. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by LRs. and others (2002) 3 SCC 676, it was observed that merely because the suit for specific performance at the instance of the vendee has become barred by limitation that by itself is not enough to deny the benefit of the plea of part performance of agreement of sale to the person in possession. A perusal of S. 53-A shows that it does not forbid a defendant-transferee from taking a plea in his defence to protect his possession over the suit property obtained in part performance of a contract even though the period of limitation for bringing a suit for specific performance has expired. It also does not expressly provide that a defendant-transferee is not entitled to protect his possession over the suit property taken in part performance of the contract if the period of limitation to bring a suit for specific performance has expired.
14.2 The issue No. 8 is accordingly decided against LRs of Chunni Lal and consequently the suit filed by S.V. Babbar and Narender Babbar for possession has to be dismissed.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page37 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 38 15 Turning to issue No. 2 and 3, both issues being interconnected are taken up together.
15.1 Vasant Inder Nangia claims that not only excess payment was made to Chunni Lal, but Vasant Inder Nangia was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The total sale consideration was Rs. 1,70,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.78,000/- and an amount of Rs. 9,600/- was admittedly paid. For the remaining amount of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.27,600/- as claimed by Vasant Inder Nangia in its plaint and evidence admittedly there is no receipt/proof to substantiate payment of that amount. In the cross-examination PW-1 admitted that he does not have proof of payment of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.27,600/- as claimed in Para three of his affidavit. PW-1 also admitted that he has no proof to show payment of Rs.49,200/- to Chunni Lal except the dividend paid to Chunni Lal.
15.2 The amount of Rs.80,000/- which was to be deposited in Escorts Ltd. in FDR was also admittedly' withdrawn by Vasant Inder Nangia after a period of one year. Thereafter Rs.60,000/- was deposited in M/s Goetze India Ltd. and remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited with M/s Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. Thereafter even that amount was also withdrawn by Vasant Inder Nangia. It is claimed that vide Ex.PW-1/13 & 14, amount of Rs.2,400/- was received by Chunni Lal.
15.3 It is contended that the statement of Mr. Rajat Bhandari Ex.DW-1/P1, remained unrebutted in the proceedings before Hon'ble Delhi High Court as this witness was not cross-examined and it is recorded in the CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page38 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 39 testimony of Rajat Bhandari that FDR amount of Rs.60,000/- was returned to Chunni Lal in 1978 as also that Rs.1,620/- was paid as interest every quarter against this FDR amount.
15.4 Even if, it is assumed that Vasant Inder Nangia paid entire sale consideration still for reasons mentioned herein below, the discretionary relief of specific performance cannot be granted in favour of Vasant Inder Nangia.
15.5 The conduct of Vasant Inder Nangia would reflect that the claim that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract is a hollow statement. The agreement in question was entered into on 08.08.1977 and it was to be concluded within one year as recorded in clause No.6 of Ex.PW-1/1. The parties had option to extend time for completion of contract for a further period of reasonable time by mutual consent. But admittedly Vasant Inder Nangia never wrote to Chunni Lal asking him to perform his part of contract. There is no documentary proof on record to suggest that both sides mutually agreed to extend the time, and if so for how much period.
15.6 The claim of Vasant Inder Nangia that till Chunni Lal sent him notice dated 06.07.1981 and till the time Chunni Lal filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, Vasant Inder Nangia had no notice of refusal of performance of contract cannot be accepted. When Chunni Lal had to obtain certain necessary permissions from DDA and Income Tax authorities and when admittedly Chunni Lal was dilly-dallying, Vasant Inder Nangia was expected to be more cautious in dealing with CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page39 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 40 Chunni Lal. Still no communication was sent by him to Chunni Lal. After expiry of first year from the date of agreement to sell, a reasonable time in my considered view would be at the most few months thereafter. Being very liberal in favour of Vasant Inder Nangia, it may be said that the reasonable time after first year was at the most by extending it by another year. Still the said reasonable time also stood expired in August 1979. Between August 1979 to July, 1981, no step was taken by Vasant Inder Nangia for enforcement of contract or asking Chunni Lal to perform his part of contract. These facts indicate that the claim of readiness and willingness is no more than a hollow claim.
15.7 On behalf of Vasant Inder Nangia it is contended that DW-1 admitted that till 06.07.1981 Chunni Lal did not correspond with Vasant Inder Nangia and therefore Vasant Inder Nangia had no notice of refusal of performance of contract. Vasant Inder Nangia would contend that DW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that Vasant Inder Nangia for the first time came to know about non-performance of agreement to sell after the letter dated 06.07.1981 Ex.PW-1/16.
15.8 Not much weight can be attached to this admission since other circumstances mentioned above would show that Vasant Inder Nangia had adequate reasons to know that Chunni Lal was refusing to perform his part of contract, much prior to this date.
15.9 PW-1 in fact admitted that Chunni Lal was Dilly Dallying in taking steps for transfer of property in 1978 and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of Vasant Inder Nangia to claim that he had no notice of refusal of CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page40 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 41 performance.
15.10 S.V. Babbar relied upon the case of A.K. Laxmipathy Vs. Rai Sahib Panna Lal H. Lahoti Charitable Trust and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 577 and on the case of AIR 2003 SC 1391, titled as Manju Nath Anandappa Vs. Tammanasa and Ors. and the case of Inder Chand Jain Vs. Moti Lal, 2009 (9) JT 552, to support his contention that the Vasant Inder Nangia is not entitled to decree of specific performance.
15.11 Reliance of Vasant Inder Nangia on document Ex.PW-1/5, which is a photocopy, is futile since neither this document has been proved in accordance with law nor it finds substantiated from the records of DDA that any such application was given by Chunni Lal to DDA. Instead DDA officials deposed that no such application or undertaking for permission to sell property was given by Chunni Lal. Ex.PW-1/5 was objected to, during exhibition of this document, as to mode of proof by the opposite side, still this document was not sought to be proved through secondary evidence. The so called undertakings Ex.PW-1/6 & 1/7 cannot be relied as the date of such undertaking having been executed on 10.04.1980 is hand filled on a typed document, which also contains other blank spaces. This document or signatures on this document by Chunni Lal does not stand proved. In any case, it is not witnessed by anybody and the so called notary who attested these two documents was not examined.
15.12 Vasant Inder Nangia admitted that there was no written proof of extension of time by mutual consent and he never asked Chunni CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page41 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 42 Lal after expiry of one year till filing of the suit, asking Chunni Lal as to whether he has taken any steps for seeking permission to sell or for registration of sale deed. He also admitted that he never asked Chunni Lal in writing about permission to be taken under Section 230 A of the Income Tax Act and from the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. Vasant Inder Nangia also admitted that he never asked Chunni Lal in writing for compliance of agreement to sell and he never issued legal notice after expiry of period of one year.
15.13 In the cross-examination he admitted that he never met Chunni Lal between 08.08.1977 till Chunni Lal was alive and therefore his claim that sometime in April 1980, Chunni Lal met him and told him that he had applied for permission to DDA vide Ex.PW-1/5, 6 and 7 stands belied, so does his claim as to the fact that he met Chunni Lal after letter Ex.PW-1/16 sent by Chunni Lal when Chunni Lal asked him that he will withdraw his letter Ex.PW-1/16 dated 06.07.1981.
15.14 Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of Vasant Inder Nangia that till April 1980, Chunni Lal kept on promising him that he was applying for permission. The fact of non-applying of permission by Chunni Lal for a considerable period after one year from the date of agreement to sell should have been adequate indication to Vasant Inder Nangia that Chunni Lal was not willing to perform his part of contract and therefore, steps ought to have been taken by Vasant Inder Nangia for specific CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page42 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 43 performance.
15.15 The suit filed by Vasant Inder Nangia for specific performance was filed as late as on 12.07.1984, that is after almost seven years from the date of contract and during this period he did nothing for enforcement of contract. These facts reveal that Vasant Inder Nangia was not willing and ready to perform his part of contract. Issue No.2 is accordingly decided against Vasant Inder Nangia.
15.16 Even otherwise relief of specific performance of an agreement to sell is a discretionary relief for which the conduct of parties, more particularly the purchaser, has to be viewed carefully and little strictly. It is now well settled that while invoking this discretionary relief, the court would look at the facts and circumstances of each case as also the conduct of parties to decide whether the discretion should be exercised in favour of the plaintiff or not.
15.17 In Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2157, it was held, that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, postulates continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. It is a condition precedent for obtaining a relief of grant of specific performance of contract. The court, keeping in view the fact that it exercises a discretionary jurisdiction, would be entitled to take into consideration as to whether the suit had been filed within a reasonable time. What would be a reasonable time would, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast law can be laid down therefor. Even the conduct of CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page43 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 44 the parties in this behalf would also assume significance. In that case even the subsequent conduct of plaintiff in delay in impleading third party purchaser of suit property was considered to judge Readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, in Para 17, as follows:-
"It may be true that the name of the purchaser was not disclosed but then it was open to the plaintiff to ask for other and better particulars of the said statements. Why she had to wait for a period of more than three years for impleading the subsequent purchasers as parties has not been explained. Even an application for injunction was filed only in September 1985. According to her husband, she came to learn about the sale of property in the name of defendant No. 5 only on 29.9.1986. Why an inquiry was not made in the Registration Office although the deed of sale was a registered one again defies anybody's comprehension. Readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, therefore, is required to be considered from the aforementioned backdrop of events."
15.18 In AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 577 A. K. Lakshmipathy (D) and Ors.
v. Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti Charitable Trust and Ors., it was held that it is well settled that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, it has to be proved that the plaintiff who is seeking for a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale must always be ready and willing to complete the terms of the agreement for sale.
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page44 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 45 15.19 In AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1786 Bal Krishna v. Bhagwan Das, it was held as follows:
"............The plaintiffs readiness and willingness must be in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the essential part of the contract would be required to be demonstrated by him from the institution of the suit till it is culminated into decree of the court. It is also settled that by virtue of Section 20 of the Act, the relief for specific performance lies in the discretion of the court and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The exercise of the discretion to order specific performance would require the court to satisfy itself that the circumstances are such that it is equitable to grant decree for specific performance of the contract. While exercising the discretion, the court would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, the conduct of parties, and their respective interests under the contract. ..........................."
15.20 In N. P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 116, it was held, "To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances..................................."
CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page45 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 46 15.21 In the case of Janardhanam Prasad Vs. Ram Dass, JT 2007 (3) SC 187, it was held that when the suit for specific performance was not filed in time, discretionary relief under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act cannot be granted.
15.22 The basic principle behind Section 16(c) read with Explanation (ii) is that any person seeking benefit of the specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemish less throughout entitling him to the specific relief. The provision imposes a personal bar. The Court is to grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the person seeking relief.
15.23 Thus, even U/s 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the present relief of specific performance of contract cannot be granted to Vasant Inder Nangia. Issue No.3 is accordingly decided against Vasant Inder Nangia.
16 Issue No. 10 as framed on 28.04.2005 as to limitation of the suit for specific performance has to fail against Vasant Inder Nangia, who calculated the period of limitation of three years from the date of alleged filing of a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940, claiming that it was then Vasant Inder Nangia came to know about non- performance of contract by Chunni Lal.
16.1 As discussed in the Issue No. 2 and 3, the conduct of Vasant Inder Nangia indicates that this plea of lack of knowledge of nonperformance CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page46 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 47 by Chunni Lal is false, therefore, the plea that limitation cannot be said to have begun is false. Vasant Inder Nangia admitted that letter dated 06.07.1981 Ex. PW-1/16 was received by him on 10.07.1981 still the present suit was filed on 12.07.1984 i.e. beyond three years from the first date of notice of refusal.
16.2 Contention of Vasant Inder Nangia that it has to be assumed that there was no date fixed for performance of contract as the performance was based on future event of applying for necessary permissions has to be rejected in view of specific clause in agreement to sell that the sale deed was to be executed and completed within one year from 08.08.1977.
16.3 In the agreement there was a specific period of one year for performance, which was extendable by a reasonable period. By granting maximum indulgence to Vasant Inder Nangia by further extending the period for one year still the suit of Vasant Inder Nangia is barred by limitation.
16.4 When there is a specific date of performance fixed in an agreement the plaintiff seeking specific performance cannot take shelter of the second part of the provision under Article 54 of the Limitation Act 1963, to count the period from the date of notice of refusal. The date of notice of refusal becomes material only when there is no date fixed for performance for contract.
16.5 S.V. Babbar has also relied upon the case of Ahmmadsahab Abdul CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page47 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 48 Mulla Vs. Bidijan and Ors., AIR 2009 SC 2193, wherein it was held that when a date is fixed in an agreement to sell, it means that there is a definite date fixed for doing particular act. It was held in Para 7 as follows:-
"7. The inevitable conclusion is that the expression 'date fixed for the performance' is a crystallized notion. This is clear from the fact that the second part "time from which period begins to run" refers to a case where no such date is fixed. To put it differently, when date is fixed it means that there is a definite date fixed for doing a particular act. Even in the second part the stress is on 'when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused'. Here again, there is a definite point of time, when the plaintiff notices the refusal. In that sense both the parts refer to definite dates. So, there is no question of finding out an intention from other circumstances. Whether the date was fixed or not the plaintiff had notice that performance is refused and the date thereof is to be established with reference to materials and evidence to be brought on record. The expression 'date' used in Article 54 of the Schedule to the Act definitely is suggestive of a specified date in the calendar. We answer the reference accordingly. The matter shall now be placed before the Division Bench for deciding the issue on merits".
16.6 Similarly he has relied upon the case of S. Kuldeep Singh Vs. H.K.L. Choudhary, 153 (2008) DLT 376 wherein it was held that where there is a stipulation in the agreement that if the landlady fails to obtain NOC within nine months of the date of agreement the vendee was free to get CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page48 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia 49 sale executed through court, the suit was barred by limitation being beyond three years as there was no option available with the vendee to claim that the vendor continued to be in breach of agreement.
16.7 In the present case not only the date of performance was fixed but even otherwise even from the date of refusal the suit is barred as the refusal must be deemed to be in the knowledge of Vasant Inder Nangia latest sometime in the year 1980. After all even till year 1980, Chunni Lal had taken no steps for seeking permissions from DDA and other departments, as required. Counting the period from that date the suit of Vasant Inder Nangia is barred by limitation. This issue is also decided against Vasant Inder Nangia.
RELIEF 17 As a result both the suits ought to be dismissed. Both the suits are dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Delivered & announced in the open Court on 13th of February, 2013. (DIG VINAY SINGH) Addl. District Judge, Central-04, Tis Hazari Courts.
Delhi CS No.410/08/84 Vasant Inder Nangia Vs. Duni Chand & Ors. Dated 13.02.2013 page49 of 49 h.l. CS No.412/08/89 S.V. Babbar Vs. Vasant Inder Nangia