Delhi High Court
S.P.Gupta vs Ruchi Agarwal on 3 March, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 12.2.2009
Date of Order: March 03, 2009
IA No. 12798/2007 in CS(OS) No. 2205/2007
% 03.03.2009
S.P.Gupta ... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Advocate &
Mr. Wasim Ashraj, Advocate
Versus
Ruchi Agarwal ... Defendant
Through: Mr. Rohit Chaudhary, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
This application under Section 24 read with Section 151 CPC has been made by the plaintiff herein for transfer of a suit bearing no. 452/2007 pending before Mr. Sumit Dass, Civil Judge Tis Hazari to this Court on the ground that both the suits (the instant suit & Suit No. 452/2007) were in respect of the same property and the plaintiff herein is defendant and the defendant herein is mother of the plaintiff in the suit before the Civil Judge. IA No. 12798/2007 in CS(OS) No. 2205/2007 S.P.Gupta v. Ruchi Agarwal Page 1 of 5
2. A perusal of the two suits shows that in suit no. 452/2007, filed before the Civil Judge, plaintiff Mr. Nikesh Agarwal son of Ruchi Agarwal has pleaded that the property no. F-3, NDSE, Part-II, New Delhi, initially belonged to his grandmother Mrs. Sumitra Agarwal and through her Will had gone to his grandfather Mr. Radhey Shyam Agarwal. After death of Mr. Radhey Shyam Agarwal, in a family partition the property had fallen to his share and he had become owner of the property. The defendant Mr. S.P.Gupta (plaintiff in the instant suit) was in the permissive occupation of the property as a licensee, being a relative and he refused to vacate the property despite request so he filed a suit seeking decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant directing the defendant to quit the premises. And he also claimed mesne profits and damages @ Rs.20,000 p.m. for the unauthorized use and occupation of the said property.
3. Shri S.P.Gupta, defendant in suit no. 452/2007 filed the instant suit before this Court stating therein that Mr. Rakesh Agarwal father of Mr. Nikesh Agarwal and husband of Ms. Ruchi Agarwal had taken a loan of Rs.5 lac from him and as a security of the loan, mortgaged this property no. F-3, NDSE Part-II, New Delhi to him. The amount of Rs.5 lac was saved by the plaintiff and his wife for purchasing a two-bedroom flat however, it was given as a loan to Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, a relative of his wife and they shifted to the premises F-3, NDSE, Part-II under an oral understanding that they would remain in the property as a tenant initially at a rent of Rs.1,000/- p.m. for a period of six years and if within six years, IA No. 12798/2007 in CS(OS) No. 2205/2007 S.P.Gupta v. Ruchi Agarwal Page 2 of 5 the loan amount was not paid back, the plaintiff would become owner of the property. It is alleged that the plaintiff paid rent @ Rs.1,000/- p.m. in cash. The rent was enhanced to Rs.1250/- pm. in the year 1996 and then to Rs.1500/- p.m. in the year 1998. The amount of Rs.5 lac loan taken from the plaintiff was not paid by Mr. Rakesh Agarwal. Since relations were good, no document was prepared in respect of the mortgage or in respect of the oral understanding. In December, 1998 when the period of six years expired a request was made by Mr. Rakesh Agarwal, to extend the period by three months and an assurance was given that the amount would be paid back latest by March, 1999 along with interest @ 1% p.m. The defendant herein Ms. Ruchi Agarwal in the year 1998 suggested reducing the understanding between the parties into writing and she showed her willingness to execute a document on stamp paper in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant executed a deed in favour of the plaintiff on 14.5.1998 whereby the understanding between the parties was reduced into writing and she agreed that in case of failure on her part to return the principal amount, the plaintiff would become absolute owner of the said property. The defendant was not able to return this money, she therefore, suggested plaintiff to stop paying rent from 1.4.1999. Thereafter, since relations were cordial, the plaintiff never requested defendant to execute deed of sale in his favour and continued living in the property on the basis of this understanding. Mr. Rakesh Agarwal however died in October, 2004. In December, 2006 father of the defendant asked the plaintiff herein to vacate the property. On this, the plaintiff IA No. 12798/2007 in CS(OS) No. 2205/2007 S.P.Gupta v. Ruchi Agarwal Page 3 of 5 brought to his notice the arrangement between the parties. The Plaintiff also got published a notice in 'The Statesman' and 'Navbharat Times' about his legal rights. However, Mr. Nikesh Agarwal, son of Ruchi Agarwal, plaintiff in suit no.452/2007, filed a suit before the Civil Judge claiming ownership of the property and seeking mandatory injunction against the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking specific performance of the document executed by the defendant and also prayed for decree of declaration that the plaintiff had become owner in possession of the property and sought a permanent injunction restraining defendant and her LRs, assigns, representatives from disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property, in the alternative plaintiff made a prayer for decree of recovery of Rs.40 lac against the loan amount paid by him to defendant/defendant's husband and also claimed damages of Rs.10 lac.
4. There is no doubt that the two suits are in respect of the same property and the rights of the parties inter se are to be determined after taking into account the claims of the parties and their evidence. I consider that it would be appropriate that suit pending before the Civil Judge is transferred to this Court and both the suits are tried together before this Court. The application is allowed. The Civil Judge Mr. Sumit Dass before whom the suit is pending is directed to send suit no. 452/2007, along with entire record, documents and IA No. 12798/2007 in CS(OS) No. 2205/2007 S.P.Gupta v. Ruchi Agarwal Page 4 of 5 evidence so far recorded in the suit to this Court within 10 days of receipt of the order.
Copy of this order be sent to the Civil Judge.
The matter be listed before this Court on 30th March, 2009.
March 03, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
IA No. 12798/2007 in CS(OS) No. 2205/2007 S.P.Gupta v. Ruchi Agarwal Page 5 of 5