Delhi District Court
Vidyawati vs Geeta Rani on 16 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE04
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
CS DJ : 575946/2016
CNR No. : DLNW010002192010
Vidya Wati
W/o Sh. Shyam Sunder
R/o Flat No. 312, White House
Apartments, Sector 13, Rohini,
Delhi110085
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Geeta Rani
W/o Sh. Prem Kumar
R/o 219/5, Gandhi Nagar,
Jind, Haryana
2. Anju Goyal
W/o Sh. Jagdeep Goyal
R/o Flat No. 35, Lok Nayak Apartments,
Delhi110085
3. Jagdeep Goyal @ Jagdeep Kr. Goyal
S/o Late Sh. V. P. Goyal
R/o Flat No. 35, Lok Nayak Apartments,
Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi110085
4. The Sub Registrar VIC
Rohini, Sector 16, Delhi
5. Sudhir Singh
S/o Shir Om Singh
R/o RZ43, Vijay Enclave,
PalamDabri Road, Dwarka,
New Delhi110045
......Defendants
CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 1 of 21
Suit filed on : 30.10.2009
Arguments completed on : 31.10.2023
Judgment Announced on : 16.11.2023
SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTERED
G.P.A, AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THE LEASE DEED,
REGISTERED ON 01.01.2009 IN THE OFFICE OF SUB
REGISTRAR FOR DECLARATION AND FOR
MANDATORY & PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT:
1. As per record, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against four defendants for cancellation of registered GPA, Agreement to Sell and the lease deed registered on 01.01.2009 and for relief of declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff impleaded defendant no. 5 Sudhir Singh upon filing of written statement by defendant no. 2 and 3. It is averred by the plaintiff that she is the member of "The ESIC friends Coop. Group Housing Society Limited' Plot no. 34, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi110085 having membership no. 216 and she was holding her share certificate bearing serial no. 12193. It is averred that vide allotment letter dated 13.05.2001, the flat no. 312, was allotted to her which was approved by DDA authorities on 29.12.2000 and the possession letter was issued on 15.02.2007 although she is residing in the said flat since the year 2001.
1.1 It is averred that plaintiff was in urgent need of money to discharge her liabilities and in this regard, she contacted the CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 2 of 21 husband of the defendant no. 2 Sh. Jagdeep Goyal @ Jagdeep Kumar Goyal, the defendant no. 3, in the month of November, 2008 and thereafter she came in contact with the defendants no. 1 and 2, who agreed, to provide a loan of Rs. 12,00,000/ to the plaintiff. It is averred that initially it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that she would handover the original allotment letter, possession letter and the share certificate to the them as security for repayment of the loan amount. It is averred that on 20.12.2008, the defendants gave only Rs. 2,00,000/ to the plaintiff in cash towards the part payment of the loan and defendants got her signatures on blank stamp papers, other papers & receipts and also took into their custody the original documents namely original share certificate, original allotment letter, original possession letter and some photographs of the plaintiff as security for the repayment of the loan amount. It is averred that defendants gave assurance to her to handover to her the balance of the loan amount in the month of January, 2009.
1.2 It is averred that on 26.12.2008, a loan agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and 2, which was also signed by defendant no. 3 as a witness. It is averred that the loan agreement contains the stipulation that the defendant no. 1 and 2 had agreed to provide a loan of Rs. 12,00,000/ to the plaintiff, although by that time only a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ only was provided to her towards the loan amount. It is averred that apart from the loan agreement, the defendants also obtained her signatures on the already typed and prepared documents on stamp papers i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Lease Deed, Affidavit etc. CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 3 of 21 on the fake and false assurances that the abovesaid documents were being executed and would be used only as collateral security. It is averred that in para no. 3 of the loan agreement dated 26.12.2008 that said documents were meant only as collateral security against the said loan. It is averred that although the plaintiff has remained in absolute actual and exclusive physical possession and use of the said flat, however it is wrongly mentioned in para no. 4 of the loan agreement dated 26.12.2008 that the possession of the one room was given to the defendants. It is averred that none of the defendants is in physical possession of any part or portion of the above said flat. It is averred that said agreement was also signed by defendant no. 3 and his friend Mr. Rajinder Kumar as witnesses.
1.3 It is averred that as per loan agreement, the loan amount is required to be repaid up to the end of the month of November 2009 and defendant no. 1 to 3 were legally bound to return the original title documents of the flat to her on repayment of the entire loan amount in accordance of the loan agreement. It is averred that defendant no. 1 to 3 are also liable to cancel and return the original GPA, Agreement to Sell, Lease Deed executed on 30.12.2008 and registered on 01.01.2009 and they are further liable to destroy all the blank documents / papers got signed by them by her and they are further liable to return all the documents in their possession to the plaintiff, obtained by them in pursuance of the loan agreement. It is averred that on 30.12.2008, defendants called the plaintiff at D. C. Chowk, Rohini Sector 9, Delhi and from there, they took the plaintiff to the Office of Sub CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 4 of 21 Registrar, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi and at the Office, they informed her that above said documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Lease Deed, affidavit etc. were required to be registered and all the defendants again gave assurance to the plaintiff that said documents would only be used as collateral security for the repayment of the loan amount, although, the whole of the amount was yet to be provided to the plaintiff. It is averred that the defendants further gave assurance to her that the said documents would never be misused to harm the right and interest of the plaintiff in the flat and that bonafidely believing in their assurances and promises to be true, she had agreed to get the said documents registered in the Office of Sub Registrar.
1.4 It is averred that defendants provided only a total sum of Rs. 7,00,000/ to the plaintiff against the agreed loan amount of Rs. 12,00,000/ and they have never provided the balance loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ to her. It is averred that although the defendants in collusion with Shri Rajinder Kumar got executed the loan agreement for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/ and thereafter, also got executed and got registered a GPA, Agreement to Sell and a lease deed in respect of the above said flat of the plaintiff besides, having obtained her signature on blank stamp papers and other blank papers under the fake and false assurances to use the same only as collateral security for repayment of the loan amount, but the defendants actually provided only a total sum of Rs. 7,00,000/ towards the loan and thus, all the defendants in collusion with the said Rajender Kumar hatched a conspiracy against her to grab aforesaid flat.
CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 5 of 211.5 It is averred that plaintiff being a honest person, started to discharge her liability towards the repayment of the loan and paid a total sum of Rs. 3,36,000/ in cash to the defendants in various installments on different dates in presence of the witnesses, but despite her repeated requests, the defendants avoided to issue receipts to her against the repayment of the loan amount. It is averred that defendants have also shown their extreme cleverness in accepting only of the cash amount from her as they always declined to accept the repayment of the loan through cheques. It is averred that in fact, one cheque no. 90643 of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ drawn on the account of plaintiff at Axis Bank, Rohini, Delhi and two other cheques bearing no. 90627 of a sum of Rs. 20,000/ and the cheque no. 90628 for a sum of Rs. 48,000/ drawn on the account of the plaintiff's husband Shri Shyam Sunder also at Axis Bank, Rohini, Delhi are still lying in the illegal possession of the defendants despite the fact that the defendants have already received a cash amount from the plaintiff against the said cheques.
1.6 It is averred that in the month of July, 2009, the defendant no. 2 along with her husband came to the flat of the plaintiff and demanded the payment of the loan amount and that the plaintiff requested them to give a proper receipt for the payment of the installments of Rs. 3,36,000/ but they declined to issue any such receipts to her without assigning any proper reason and they declared that they have purchased the flat no. 312 and have become its owner and that they would sale it to any one. It is averred that they further threatened to take the physical CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 6 of 21 possession of the flat by their money and muscle powers. It is averred that plaintiff became apprehensive of some mischief being committed by them and as such, she submitted her application dated 06.08.2009 before the Sub Registrar Office for obtaining the certified copies of the GPA, Agreement to Sell and the lease deed and the same were provided to her on 10.08.2009. It is averred that on 21.08.2009, the plaintiff obtained an order from Hon'ble Delhi High Court for installation of a separate and independent electricity meter for her flat and in order to fulfill the requirement of the NDPL, she had to produce the original allotment and possession letter, which were in the custody of the defendants and she approached the defendants several times and also requested them to bring the original documents, but they avoided to produce the same with the malafide motive. It is averred that plaintiff was shocked and surprised when she saw that her name also appeared in the list of the defaulters, which was prepared and pasted on the notice board of the society by the managing committee for the purpose of ensuing the elections in the society for the year 2009. It is averred that in the list of the alleged defaulters dated 12.09.2009, her name appeared at serial no. 13, and in the column of the remarks, it is written that the flat no. 312 "sold to the defendant no. 1 and 2". It is averred that plaintiff lodged a complaint with Police Control Room and police arrived at the flat and also recorded her statement. It is averred that the plaintiff along with her husband also went to the office of the society and enquired from the secretary, regarding the said remarks in the list of the defaulters and upon the repeated CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 7 of 21 requests, the secretary issued a letter dated 17.09.2009 which was addressed to the defendant no. 2 and a copy of which was also sent simultaneously to the plaintiff and AR (NW) RCS Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi. It is averred that on receiving the letter, she was again shocked and surprised on finding that the defendant no. 2 has submitted an application in the office of society for transfer of the membership of the plaintiff in her favour under Section 91 of Delhi Coop. Societies Act on the basis of the registered Agreement to Sell dated 30.12.2008/01.01.2009. It is averred that thereafter, the managing committee of the society also pasted a public notice dated 18.09.2009 on the main gate of the society stating that the defendant no. 1 and 2 have allegedly purchased the above mentioned flat no. 312, and they have also submitted an application for membership which were allegedly being under consideration of the managing committee.
1.7 It is averred that on having received the above information, the plaintiff immediately lodged her strong objections with the managing committee on 22.09.2009 and apprised the managing committee and the concerned AR of the true and real facts of the transaction having taken place between her and the defendants and the plaintiff informed the managing committee as well as the concerned AR. It is averred that plaintiff also sent a legal notice dated 23.09.2009, to the defendant no. 1 to 3 and also lodged a complaint with SHO, PS Prashant Vihar, Delhi on 24.09.2009 disclosing all the actual facts of the transactions between her and the defendants. It is CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 8 of 21 averred that defendants sent their reply dated 03.10.2009 to the legal notice dated 23.09.2009 sent by the plaintiff and they have clearly admitted that there was a loan transaction and loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/. It is averred that they have also admitted in their reply that GPA, Agreement to Sell and Lease were also executed on 30.12.2008 in respect of the above said flat. It is averred that defendants have further admitted that to secure the loan amount, it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would handover all the original documents of her said flat to the defendant no. 1 and 2. It is averred that defendant no. 1 and 2 have further admitted that the said loan amount and interest thereof are still due and payable and the loan agreement is subsisting between the parties till the end of the month of November, 2009. It is averred that in their reply dated 03.10.2009, the defendants no. 1 and 2 have also not denied that they did not submit an application to the managing committee of the society for transfer of the membership of the plaintiff in their favour and that apart from this, the defendants have also stated in their reply that they are not liable to withdraw their application filed by them for transfer of the membership. It is averred that the plaintiff does not have any personal grudge against the managing committee of the society, but the committee has declined to provide at least a photocopy of application submitted by defendant no. 1 and 2.
1.8 It is averred that plaintiff and her family are residing in the flat no. 312 in the said society and the entire flat is in CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 9 of 21 exclusive possession and use of the plaintiff and her family and defendant no. 3 has repeatedly threatened to take the possession of the flat by force and with muscle power and on 14.10.2009, he threatened that he would come along with defendant no. 1 and 2 to the flat soon after Deepawali and with his muscle power, they would take the physical possession of the said flat and would thus forcibly dispossess the plaintiff and her family from the said flat. It is averred that plaintiff further apprehends that defendants may sell or transfer or create third party interest in the flat as threatened by them. It is averred that alleged sale of the suit property dated 18.12.2009 is null and void and he has not acquired any right and interest in it on the basis of said documents.
2. The defendant no. 2 and 3 filed their joint written statement opposing the suit with submissions that suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and that defendant no. 3 has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party. It is averred that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decided the present suit as the value of the property in dispute is more than Rs. 20 lacs and even otherwise the loan which was advanced by defendant no. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff is Rs. 22,50,000/ which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. It is averred that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as she has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. It is averred that plaintiff who used to organize exhibitions in different countries and had visited many countries for the said purpose, approached the defendant no. 1 and 2 for a loan of Rs 12 lacs, CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 10 of 21 which she needed for said exhibition as well as for the marriage of her daughter. It is averred that defendants advanced a loan of Rs. 12 lacs to her against execution of loan agreement and executed documents transferring her right in flat no. 312, ESIC, GHS Ltd, Sector13, Rohini, Delhi in favour of defendants which were duly notarized as collateral security against the advancement of said loan. It is averred that possession of the flat except one room was retained by the plaintiff and the plaintiff was entitled to the rents and benefits which would occur out of the said flat. It is averred that at that time original documents were also retained by the plaintiff and 3/4 days after the advancement of the loan of Rs. 12 lacs and execution of the said loan agreement the plaintiff again approached the defendants for a further loan of Rs. 15 lacs. It is averred that defendants initially were reluctant but on the repeated request of the plaintiff, they agreed to advance Rs. 10,50,000/ on the condition that the plaintiff will hand over all the original documents of the flat to the defendants and would execute agreement to sell and GPA in their favour and would register those documents with the Sub Registrar Office and would also execute a Lease Deed in their favour and the defendant shall charge Rs. 4000/ per month as interest from the plaintiff besides interest @ 1 % per month on a total loan of Rs. 22,50,000/. It is averred that accordingly on advancement of Rs. 10,50,000/ in addition to Rs. 12,00,000/ already advanced, the plaintiff executed registered Agreement to Sell, GPA and Lease Deed on 30.12.2008. It is averred that plaintiff was supposed to pay rent @ Rs. 4000/ per month CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 11 of 21 besides Rs. 22500/ as interest to the defendants from January 2009 upto 30.11.2009 failing which defendants have a right to recover the amount alongwith interest plus rent by selling the said property and settle the accounts. It is averred that plaintiff neither paid the amount, interest or rent to the defendants, hence they have sold the property to Shri Sudhir Singh on 18.12.2009 for a consideration of Rs. 26 lacs. It is averred that out of the said amount, defendants have realized an amount of Rs. 25,68,000/ which includes original loan amount of Rs. 22,50,000/ plus interest @ 1 % per month which comes to Rs.2,70,000/ and rent @ Rs. 4000/ per month which comes to Rs. 48,000/ and the balance of Rs. 32,000/ is lying with the defendants and the plaintiff was accordingly called upon to collect the amount of Rs. 32,000/ by virtue of notice dated 12.01.2010, however she did not come forward to receive the amount.
2.1 It is denied by defendants that only a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ was provided to the plaintiff and that her signatures were taken on the documents on the fake and false assurances as alleged. It is also denied that defendants are liable to return the documents as the amount of loan had not been returned by the plaintiff. It is denied that the documents were got registered from the plaintiff in the Office of Sub Registrar on 30.12.2008 on false assurances. It is averred that the documents were executed by the plaintiff voluntarily after obtaining the loan. It is denied that further amount of Rs. 7 lacs was only provided to the plaintiff as alleged. It is submitted that cheques were handed over against the CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 12 of 21 part payment of interest and rent accrued but the cheques have not been presented by the defendants. It is denied that the plaintiff has returned an amount of Rs. 3,36,000/ in cash to the defendants as alleged on different dates. It is averred that the legal notice issued by the plaintiff was duly replied and that the complaints given to the police by her are totally false and baseless. It is denied that defendant no. 3 has repeatedly threatened the plaintiff to take the possession by force as alleged or that he threatened the plaintiff on 14.10.2009 as alleged.
3. The defendant no. 5 opposed the suit by filing his written statement with the averments that as no relief has been claimed against him, the suit is liable to be dismissed and it is claimed by him that he has purchased the flat from the defendants for consideration of Rs. 26 lacs. It is denied that he has not acquired any right or interest in the suit property on the basis of sale documents dated 18.12.2009 executed in his favour and that the said documents are illegal and void.
4. In the replications filed to the written statements of the defendants, the plaintiff has reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made by her in the plaint. It is denied by her that loan of Rs. 22,50,000/ was taken by her from the defendants and that she voluntarily executed the documents in the Office of Sub Registrar.
5. On completion of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 14.07.2011: CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 13 of 21
1. Whether the suit do not disclose any further action ? OPD D1 and D5
2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder ? OPD3
3. Whether this court has no locas standi to try this suit ? OPD D2
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant no. 5 ? OPD5
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of cancellation of documents, as prayed ? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed ? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed ? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed ? OPP
9. Relief if any.
6. In support of her case, plaintiff has stepped into witness box and has also got examined one more witness. Defendant no. 2 and 3 have appeared in the witness box to defend the suit.
7. I have heard the submissions made by Ld. Counsels for parties and have perused the file. My findings on the issues are as under: Issue no. 1 Whether the suit do not disclose any further action ? OPD D1 and D5 CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 14 of 21
8. The issue is not properly framed and during the course of arguments, it was considered that the issue is to the effect that the suit does not disclose any cause of action. Counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defendant no. 1 is one of the party of the loan agreement and other documents registered regarding the flat, as such, the plaintiff is having cause of action against the defendant no. 1. It is further contended that defendant no. 5 was impleaded as a party in the suit as it was disclosed by defendant no. 2 and 3 in their written statement that the flat has been sold in his favour by executing the documents dated 18.12.2009. The counsel for the plaintiff fairly conceded during the arguments that no relief has been claimed qua the said documents dated 18.12.2009 and that there is averment in the plaint that he ever threatened the plaintiff to create any third party interest in the flat by using the said documents. As per pleadings of the parties, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against defendant no.
1. The issue is decided accordingly.
Issue no. 2 Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder ? OPD3
9. It is the contention and averment of defendant no. 3 that he has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party and that suit is bad for misjoinder of the party. The defendant no. 3 is the husband of defendant no. 2 who is one of the party to the loan agreement and the documents executed qua the flat by the plaintiff and it is averred that he threatened the plaintiff by visiting the suit flat about creation of third party interest in the CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 15 of 21 flat by using the documents executed by the plaintiff qua the flat. The defendant no. 3 is not a beneficiary to the documents executed by the plaintiff. In view of the pleadings of the suit, the defendant no. 3 appears not a necessary party, however, as per provisions of Order 1 rule 9 CPC, no suit is to be defeated by reason of misjoinder of the party. The issue is decided accordingly.
Issue no. 3 Whether this court has no locas standi to try this suit ? OPD D2
10. The issue is not correctly framed and during the course of submissions, it was submitted that the issue is pertaining to the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit and it should be considered as that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant no. 2 and 3 in their joint written statement raised the objections to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court averring that the value of the property in dispute is more than Rs. 20 lacs and that the loan which was advanced by the defendant no. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff is Rs. 22,50,000/, thus, the same is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. It is contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,50,000/ which is the value of the property as mentioned in the agreement to sell which is sought to be declared cancelled. During the course of final submissions, it is conceded by the Ld. Counsels for the parties that due to amendment in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts in Delhi, now the suit is within pecuniary jurisdiction of the court even if the objections of the defendants are considered as sustainable. Considering the CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 16 of 21 pleadings of the suit and the relevant law regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the issue is decided against the defendants accordingly.
Issue no. 4 Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant no. 5 ? OPD5
11. As stated above, no relief has been claimed against defendant no. 5 nor there is any averment that he threatened the plaintiff to create third party interest in the title of the flat by using the documents executed in his favour by the defendant no.
2. In view of the facts, the issue is decided in favour of defendant no. 5.
Issue no. 6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed ? OPP
12. The plaintiff has prayed for decree declaring her as exclusive owner of the suit property with the averments that she is member of "The ESIC friends Coop. Group Housing Society Limited' having membership no. 216 and holding her share certificate bearing serial no. 12193 and the flat was alloted to her vide allotment letter dated 13.05.2001 which was approved by DDA authorities on 29.12.2000. This averment of the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant no. 2 and 3 in their written statement. It is claim of defendant no. 2 and 3 that plaintiff executed loan agreement and executed documents transferring her rights in the said flat which were duly notarized as collateral security against the advancement of loan of Rs. 12 lacs. They further claim that an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/ was again advanced to the plaintiff CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 17 of 21 as a loan and the plaintiff executed registered agreement to sell, GPA and lease deed on 30.12.2008. Thus, the documents executed by the plaintiff as claimed by defendant no. 2 and 3 are not the documents vide which the ownership rights are transferred by the plaintiff in their favour. It is the claim of defendant no. 2 and 3 that they have sold the property to Sh. Sudhir Singh. The nature of the documents by which the property is sold to Sudhir is not disclosed in the written statement filed by them nor the sale deed executed by them is produced and proved during the trial. Thus, on the basis of pleadings and the evidence, the plaintiff is the owner of the flat and the issue is decided in her favour accordingly.
Issue no. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of cancellation of documents, as prayed ? OPP
13. The plaintiff has prayed for cancellation of registered GPA bearing registration no. 10145, registered agreement to sell bearing registration no. 19534 and registered lease deed bearing registration no. 19535, all dated 01.01.2009 registered before the Office of Sub Registrar VI C, Delhi. It is the averment of the plaintiff that at the time of providing loan of Rs. 12 lacs, loan agreement was executed on 26.12.2008 and apart from the loan agreement, defendant no. 1 and 2 obtained her signatures on the already typed and prepared documents on stamp papers i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Lease Deed, Affidavit etc on the fake and false assurance that the above said documents were being executed and would be used only as collateral security. It is her further contention that only amount of Rs. 2 lac was provided to CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 18 of 21 her and that she was called by the defendants on 30.10.2008 and was taken to the office of Sub Registrar, Sector 16, Rohini where they informed her that the aforesaid documents were required to be registered and all the defendants again gave assurance to her that the aforesaid documents would only be used as collateral security for the repayment of the loan amount. On the other hand, it is the contention of defendant no. 2 and 3 that the said registered documents were executed by the plaintiff on advancement of further loan of Rs. 10,50,000/ and that she has neither paid the amount, interest nor the rent to them. Even if the contention of the defendants is discarded totally then also the version of the plaintiff that the documents executed by her as collateral security to the loan of Rs. 12 lacs are the same documents which were got registered from the Office of Sub Registrar. The plaintiff has not denied the execution of loan agreement dated 26.12.2008 referred as Ex. PW1/D1 during the trial. The stamp paper upon which the agreement is written was purchased on 26.12.2008. The General Power of Attorney dated 30.12.2008 referred as Ex. PW1/D2 is written on stamp paper purchased on 26.12.2008 whereas the agreement to sell dated 30.12.2008 referred as Ex. PW1/D3 is written on stamp paper purchased on 28.12.2008 at 11:47 am. Thus, it is clear that a document could not be written on a stamp paper prior to the date of purchase of the stamp paper. Similar is the status of the lease deed dated 30.12.2008 referred as Ex. PW1/D4 which is written on stamp paper purchased on 28.12.2008 at 11:50 am. The plaintiff has deposed that amount of Rs. 7 lac only was received CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 19 of 21 by her as loan from defendant no. 1 and 2. She has deposed that an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/ approximately has been returned by her. It is admitted by her that she executed the documents as collateral security to the loan. Even, if the testimony of the plaintiff qua receiving of loan of Rs. 7 lac only is considered true then also the documents executed by her as collateral security cannot be cancelled as the loan has not been returned in its entirety. The issue is decided against her accordingly.
Issue no. 7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed ? OPP Issue no. 8 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed ? OPP
14. The plaintiff has claimed the mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to produce and to file the original GPA, Agreement to Sell and Lease Deed dated 30.12.2008 and registered on 01.01.2009 in the court and to impound the same. During the trial, the certified copy of said documents has been produced and no grounds are shown by the plaintiff under which the documents can be impounded by the court. The plaintiff has prayed for decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the flat on the basis of original documents in their possession and also restrained them from pledging or mortgaging of the original title deeds with the bank or any person etc. She has also claimed for decree of injunction thereby restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff and her family from the flat. As discussed above where it is found that the plaintiff has not repaid CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 20 of 21 the entire loan amount issued by him and against which she executed the documents as collateral security, the defendants cannot be restrained from taking legal remedy available to them as per the documents executed by the plaintiff qua the flat in their favour. The issues are decided against the plaintiff accordingly.
Relief
15. For the reasons discussed above, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the relief of declaration that plaintiff Vidya Wati is the owner of suit flat no. 312 in "The ESIC friends Coop. Group Housing Society Limited' Plot no. 34, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi 110085 whereas the suit for remaining reliefs is dismissed. The proportionate cost of the suit is awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared.
Announced in the open Court on November 16th, 2023 (SUNIL CHAUDHARY) ADJ04, North West Rohini Courts, Delhi CS DJ 575946/2016 Vidya Wati Vs Geeta Rani & Ors Page 21 of 21