Delhi District Court
Tilak Raj Chawla Anr vs Gudiyattam Nataraju on 24 April, 2025
1
Suit No. 16178/2016
Suit No. 62/2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIVYANG THAKUR, LD. DJ-03,
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
Civil Suits No: 16178/2016 and 62/2017
CNR Nos. : DLSW01-001504-2016 and DLSW01-000635-2017
Memo of parties in CS DJ ADJ 16178/2016
1. Shri Tilak Raj Chawla
S/o Shri Sayoji Ram Chawla
R/o 203, Orchid B Wing,
Evershine Park,
Near Country Club,
Veera Desai Road,
Andheri (West),
Mumbai - 400053
2. Dr. Tanuj Chawla
S/o Sh. T.R. Chawla,
R/o 203, Orchid B Wing,
Evershine Park,
Near Country Club,
Veera Desai Road,
Andheri (West),
Mumbai - 400053
...Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Shri Gudiyattam Nataraju
S/o Shri Ranga Shettappa,
R/o WZ-1605, Baba Bhumiya
Dharamshala, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi - 110046
Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr.
G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla
2
Suit No. 16178/2016
Suit No. 62/2017
Also at
WZ-1195, First Floor,
D2A Block,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Pankha Road Branch,
Janak Puri
New Delhi - 110058
2. Smt. S. Sujatha
W/o Shri G. Nataraju
R/o Baba Bhumiya
Dharamshala, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi - 110046
Also at
WZ-1195, First Floor,
D2A Block,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Pankha Road Branch,
Janak Puri
New Delhi - 110058
...Defendants
Memo of parties in CS DJ ADJ 62/2017
1. G. Nataraju
S/o Shri Rangashettappa
2. Mrs. S. Sujatha
W/o Mr. G. Nataraju
Both R/o WZ-11992/A, 1st Floor,
Mohan Nagar, Near Pankha Road,
New Delhi-78
....Plaintiffs
Versus
Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr.
G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla
3
Suit No. 16178/2016
Suit No. 62/2017
1. Mr. Tilak Raj Chawla
S/o Sh. Sayaji Ram Chawla
2. Dr. Tanuj Chawla
S/o Sh. T.R. Chawla
Both R/o 203, Orchid 'B' Wing
Evershine Park, Near Country Club,
Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West),
Mumbai-400 053
....Defendants
Date of Institution : 06.11.2015 / 21.01.2017
Date of final arguments : 24.12.2024
Date of decision : 24.04.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY, DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION / SUIT FOR RECOVERY AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide present common judgment, I would decide two suits namely suit filed by Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla against G. Nataraju which was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and numbered as CS (OS) 3342/2015 and titled as 'Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. G Nataraju and Anr.' and the suit filed by G. Nataraju against Tilak Raj Chawla which was originally filed before the Ld. Additional District Judge, Dwarka Courts and numbered as CS DJ ADJ 62/2017 and titled as 'G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla and Ors.' Thereafter, to avoid the possibility of conflicting findings, Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 4 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 both the suits were clubbed and tried together vide order dated 06.01.2024. Thereafter, both the suits have been tried in accordance with law and the said trial has resulted in the present common judgment in both the suits.
2. To avoid confusion and for the sake of clarity, the parties have been referred to by their name throughout the present judgment. Plaint of the Civil Suit 16178/2016
3. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking (a) decree of recovery of Rs. 26,95,885/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum; (b) decree of declaration; (c) decree of permanent injunction and (d) costs of the present suit.
4. In the plaint of this suit, the plaintiffs have pleaded that the Plaintiff no. 1 was formerly working as an Executive Director with Allahabad Bank and prior thereto as a General Manager with Dena Bank and the Plaintiff no. 2 is the son of Plaintiff no. 1 and is working as a Consultant with Tata Medical Centre at Kolkata and having permanent residence in Mumbai and also, the Plaintiff no. 2 is the SPA Holder of Plaintiff No. 1 by virtue of Special Power of Attorney dated 28.10.2015. It is further averred in the plaint that the Defendant no. 1 is a businessman and working as a cargo agent and Defendant no. 2 is the wife of Defendant no. 1 who is associated in the business of Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 5 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Defendant no. 1 i.e. her husband. Plaintiffs have averred that the Defendant no. 1 had applied for allotment of an HIG Flat with DDA in the year 2010 against a deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per the scheme published by DDA and was successful in the draw of lots held by DDA on 18.04.2011. Thereafter, it is averred that the DDA had issued allotment cum demand letter no. H/312(280)2012/DDA10/DW to Defendant no. 1 at his address at WZ-1605, Baba Bhumiya Dharamshala, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046 and Defendant no. 1 was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 77,22,025/- by 26.12.2014 with DDA within the time schedule as stated therein, besides the booking amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with a clear stipulation that if the payment was not made within the time so permitted in the Demand letter, the allotment would stand cancelled. Plaintiffs have further averred that the Defendants had no funds and in lieu of the same, Defendant no. 1 had approached the Plaintiffs for sale of the allotted flat to them on a sale consideration of Rs. 82,50,000/- (exclusive of the booking amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-) which offer bonafide was accepted by the Plaintiffs. It is further averred that thereafter, an Agreement to Sell dated 24.12.2014 was entered into between the Defendant no. 1 as the seller and the Plaintiffs as purchasers and Defendant no. 1 had also executed a receipt dated 24.12.2014 for the sale consideration of Rs. Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 6 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 82,50,000/- in favour of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have further averred that thereafter, Plaintiffs had approached the Dena Bank, Versova Branch on or about 24.12.2014 for sanction and grant of a housing loan of Rs. 62,00,000/- for purchasing the aforementioned flat from Defendant no. 1. The said loan was sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiffs vide sanction letter dated 24.12.2014. Plaintiffs have averred that the sanctioned loan amount was to be directly disbursed to DDA through Demand Draft. It is further averred that the Plaintiffs had deposited the following documents with the Dena Bank at Versova Branch:
(i) original agreement to sell dated 24.12.2014; (ii) original stamped receipt for payments made by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants and (iii) original allotment cum demand letter dated 22.08.2014 issued by Delhi Development Authority to Defendant no. 1. Plaintiffs have also averred that the Dena Bank, through Plaintiff no. 1 had arranged to deliver by hand at the office of DDA, New Delhi, a letter no.
DB/VER/137/2014 dated 24.12.2014 requesting DDA to record the charge/lien of Dena Bank on the aforesaid flat.
5. Thereafter, Plaintiffs have averred that Dena Bank had issued seven demand drafts, all dated 24.12.2014 totaling to a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- in the name of DDA towards part of the sale consideration Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 7 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 payable by the Defendants by the way of loan advanced to the Plaintiffs which demand drafts were handed over by the Dena Bank, Versova Branch to the Plaintiff no. 1 who deposited the same with DDA on 26.12.2014 and DDA issued receipts on challans submitted for the said purpose. Thereafter, Dena Bank had released a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Plaintiffs as the remaining amount of loan towards purchase of stamp paper, etc. Thus, a total sum of Rs.61,50,000/- was disbursed by Dena Bank against the aforesaid housing loan. It is further averred that on 24.12.2014, Plaintiff no. 1 had provided more funds to the tune of Rs. 17,22,000/- by RTGS from his saving account with Dena Bank to the savings account bearing no. 10995869235 of the Defendant no. 1 with SBI, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi. Further, at the request of Defendant no. 1, a sum of Rs. 3,59,200/- was also provided by the Plaintiff no. 1 by RTGS for meeting the Stamp Duty expenses to the savings account of Defendant no. 1 on 27.12.2014. Plaintiffs have pertinently mentioned in their plaint that the application money deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- was refunded to the Defendant no. 1 by the Plaintiff vide RTGS on 31.12.2014. Plaintiffs have further submitted that Dena Bank, Versova Branch, Mumbai, vide its letter no. DB/VER/185/2015 dated 19.03.2015 had requested Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch to issue No Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 8 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the Plaintiff no. 1 for collecting the original conveyance deed from the office of Sub- Registrar, New Delhi after execution and registration of the conveyance deed by DDA in favour of the Defendants. It is further averred that the Defendants had requested the Plaintiff no. 1 for payment of Registration fee of Rs. 72,100/- for the execution of conveyance deed and the said amount was provided to the Defendants by way of Demand Draft dated 19.03.2015 issued by Dena Bank. Plaintiffs have further averred that thereafter, the possession of the flat in question was taken by the Defendants on 18.03.2015 and DDA had executed the conveyance deed dated 20.03.2015 jointly in favour of the Defendants registered on 20.03.2015 as Document no. 4849 in Book No. 1, Volume No. 5485 on pages 75 to 76 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi. Thereafter, Defendants had executed title documents such as Agreement to Sell, GPA, Money Receipt, Will, SPA, Affidavit, etc. in favour of the Plaintiff no. 1 on 18.05.2015 and the same were attested by the Notary.
6. Plaintiffs have further alleged that after entering into another agreement to sell dated 18.05.2015 with the Defendants, the Defendants started making unreasonable demands, as a result of which Plaintiffs were constrained to propose the sale of the property in Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 9 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 question to recover the entire money along with cost of investment. Plaintiffs have submitted that one Mrs. Priti Ahlawat and Mr. Ranjit Kumar jointly agreed to buy the flat at a sale consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/- and an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was provided by them on 15.06.2015 by way of cheque no. 705613 in favour of Defendant no. 1 drawn on Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and the balance was agreed to be paid within one month at the time of execution of sale deed. It is further alleged that a new savings account was opened with Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch by the Defendants on 18.05.2015 to facilitate the repayment of amounts from the proposed second sale and the Defendants had given an authority to the Plaintiff no. 1 to operate the said new savings account for hassle free transfer of amounts. The aforesaid cheque of Rs. 40,00,000/- was deposited in the said new account. Thereafter, it is averred that the Plaintiff no. 1 had transferred the said amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- on 17.06.2015 to his housing loan account bearing no. 016651024031 with Dena Bank at Versova Branch. It is also averred that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid on 03.07.2015 by the said third party buyers by way of two cheques bearing nos. 052561 and 052562 for Rs. 24,55,000/- each dated 30.06.2015 drawn on HDFC Bank and Rs. 90,000/- was deducted for depositing TDS amount. Therefore, the said Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 10 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 amount of Rs. 49,10,000/- was paid at the time of execution of sale deed by the Defendants in favour of Ms. Priti Ahlawat and Mr. Ranjit Kumar. The aforesaid two cheques were deposited with the bank on 03.07.2015. Thereafter, it is alleged that the Defendants had visited the Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch on 03.07.2015 in the evening and created a scene and instructed the bank to place a freeze in the aforesaid savings bank account for all withdrawals. Plaintiffs further averred that sensing the risk involved, the Plaintiff no. 1 had called the Bank Manager of Dena Bank and submitted request letter dated 06.07.2015 stating that the amount represented sale proceeds of the flat in which his investment is involved and hence, the Defendants or any other person should not be allowed to withdraw the money lying in the account without Plaintiff's specific authority. Plaintiffs averred in the plaint that thereafter, the Plaintiffs had informed about the aforesaid developments to Dena Bank, Versova Branch and thus vide email dated 08.07.2015, the Plaintiff no. 1 had informed that the flat against which the housing loan was raised stood sold and a part of the sale proceeds were lying with the savings bank account with Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch and Dena Bank, Versova Branch could claim the balance amount of housing loan from them invoking the banker's general lien as the amount represented sale proceeds of the asset Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 11 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 charged to the bank.
7. Plaintiffs have also averred that thereafter, Dena Bank, Versova Branch wrote to Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch vide their email dated 09.07.2015 requesting them to transfer the funds from the above savings account of the Defendants to the Housing loan account of the Plaintiffs by involving Banker's General Lien principle. It is further averred that Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch, on 11.08.2015, transferred a sum of Rs. 22,14, 115/- from the savings account with them to the housing loan account of the Plaintiffs with Versova Branch by exercising Banker's General Lien. The remaining amount of Rs. 26,95,885/- was transferred to an interest bearing FD account (receipt no. SDR 3250572 dated 11.08.2015) under Bank's lien. Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants had been trying to grab the money in the accounts with Dena Bank since 03.07.2015 and on their visit to the bank on 13.08.2015, they had instructed the bank to delete the authority given to the Plaintiff no. 1 to operate the account and as per instructions, the bank had deleted the authority and intimated the Plaintiff no. 1 vide letter no. DB/DW/RR/25/2015 dated 26.08.2015. Thereafter, Plaintiffs have alleged that on feeling cheated, Plaintiff no.1 had filed a criminal complaint dated 16.09.2015 before the SHO, Dwarka North Police Station. It is further averred that the Plaintiffs Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 12 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 had made several oral and telephonic requests to the Defendants but all in vain and consequently, filed the present suit before the Hon'ble Court for recovery of money of Rs. 26,95,885/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum, declaration and permanent injunction.
Plaint of the Civil Suit 62/2017
8. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking (a) a decree of recovery of Rs. 24,04,115/- along with interest accrued and pendente lite and future interest @ 30% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till realization; (b) a decree of permanent injunction and
(c) costs of the suit.
9. The brief facts of the plaint are that the the Plaintiff no. 1 i.e. G. Nataraju is a retired Army man and is involved in the services of packers and movers in Delhi and Plaintiff no. 2 is the wife of Plaintiff no. 1 and a homemaker. It is submitted that Defendant no. 1 is the retired bank official and Defendant no. 2 is the son of the Defendant no. 1 and Defendants no. 3 and 4 are in possession of the suit property and Defendant no. 5 is the property dealer and financier in and around Dwarka area. It is submitted that the Plaintiff no. 1 had applied the allotment of flat in DDA in the year 2010 and that the Plaintiff no. 1 had remitted Rs. 1,50,000/- as application fee and that the Plaintiff no. Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 13 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 1 was allotted the flat on 18.04.2011 and for paying the sale consideration of the flat, the Plaintiffs had approached the Defendant no. 5 through a local broker Mr. Chander Prakash and that he fixed the price for the allotment at Rs. 51,00,000/- plus the return of the registration amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is further submitted that on the basis of agreement to sell, the Defendant no. 5 had paid Rs. 7,00,000/- and the Plaintiffs handed over two blank cheques of SBI bank account of Plaintiff no. 1 to Defendant no. 5. It is alleged that Defendant no. 5 had categorically stated that the Plaintiffs would not raise any objection with regard to fixing the sale amount of the disputed flat and that he would not collect commission from the buyer on the date of execution of sale deed. It is further submitted that on receipt of demand letter from the DDA, the Plaintiffs had approached the property dealer on 15.03.2013, the Defendant no. 5 had handed over a cheque for the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- bearing no. 399938 of the HDFC bank, Dwarka and that on the same day, the said property had also paid Rs. 4,00,000/- cash to the Plaintiffs.
10. It is alleged that in the month of December 2014, the Defendant no. 5 had informed the Plaintiffs that he had finalized the total sale price for the disputed flat at Rs. 1,45,00,000/- with Defendants no. 1 and 2 and that the Defendant no. 1 Mr. T.R. Chawla had got Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 14 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 sanctioned the housing loan in Mumbai branch of Dena bank without the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and issued demand draft for an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- and had sent Rs. 17,22,000/- and Rs. 3,59,200/- through NEFT into the account of the Plaintiff no. 1 for remittance of DDA and that the Plaintiff had immediately transferred the amounts into DDA account for completion of the procedure for execution of conveyance deed. It is further submitted that on 31.12.2014, Mr. T.R. Chawla sent Rs. 1,50,000/- through NEFT from Mumbai as instructed by Mr. Yogesh Gupta and thereafter, on 18.03.2015, the Defendants had received the possession letter from DDA and the same was handed over to Mr. Yogesh Gupta and thereafter, Defendants no. 1 and 5 had completed the formalities for registration of conveyance deed in the name of Plaintiffs and Mr. T.R. Chawla stood as a witness. It is alleged that the Plaintiffs had executed Power of Attorney in the name of buyer Mr. T.R. Chawla on 18.05.2015 for the purpose of getting electricity and water connections in the disputed flat. It is also averred that the Plaintiffs had opened the bank account no. 117510014947 in Dena Bank, Dwarka and that the Plaintiffs had issued letter for closure of the HDFC bank account in Dwarka controlled by the property dealer but despite the closure instructions, the said property dealer had signed the blank cheques of Plaintiffs and that on 07.07.2015, the Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 15 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Plaintiff no. 1 had written a communication to return the said cheques.
11. It is further submitted that at the end of May 2015, Mr. T.R. Chawla had informed that he and Mr. Yogesh Gupta had finalized sale of the flat with third parties and promised to settle the remaining agreed amount to Rs. 15,00,000/- to Plaintiffs on registration of sale deed in the names of third parties i.e. Defendants no. 3 and 4. It is also averred that the Plaintiffs had executed the sale deed and at that time, Defendant no. 3 handed over cash amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- to Yogesh Gupta who had handed over the same to Mr. T.R. Chawla. It is further pertinently mentioned that the Plaintiffs had never made any agreement to sale of the allotment with any one except the power of attorney in favour of the Defendant no. 1. It is alleged that Defendant no. 1 had made a criminal complaint against the Plaintiffs which was registered as FIR no. 942/2015 under section 420/34 IPC and that Defendants no. 1 and 2 had also approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this regard. It is also alleged that Defendant no. 5 and Mrs. Baby Bodwal had also filed criminal complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the Plaintiff no. 1. Thereafter, Plaintiffs had also filed criminal complaint under section 200 Cr. P.C. and also sent a legal notice dated 12.04.2016 which was duly served and subsequently, the present suit was filed by the Plaintiffs for recovery Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 16 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 of Rs. 24,04,115/- along with pendente lite and future interest and for permanent injunction.
Proceedings of the Case (CS DJ ADJ 16178/16)
12. A perusal of the Court file reveals that the present suit was initially filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.11.2015 wherein the summons was ordered to be issued and the notice of the application under Order XXXIX R 1 and 2 of CPC was also issued to the Defendants and the Defendants were also restrained from operating/withdrawing any account whatsoever from saving bank account bearing no. 117510014947 at Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch, New Delhi and Term Deposit Receipt no. 3250572 dated 11.08.2015. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.12.2015, the present suit was transferred to the jurisdiction of District Judge, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Written Statement of defendants was filed on 19.02.2016 and Replication was filed on 02.04.2016 along with an application under Order XII R 6 of CPC. Thereafter, an application under Order VI R 17 of CPC was filed by the Defendants to amend the WS and the amended WS was taken on record accordingly. The Defendants had also filed a reply to the application under Order XII R 6 of CPC moved by the Plaintiffs. Thereafter, arguments were heard on the application under Order XII R 6 of CPC and vide separate Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 17 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 detailed order dated 09.02.2017, the aforesaid application was dismissed and the matter was proceeded for admission-denial of documents and framing of issues.
13. In the amended WS of defendants, defendants have alleged that the present suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the same and they have not approached the Court with clean hands. Defendants have further averred that the bank officials of Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch, Dena Bank, Mumbai Branch and the officials of HDFC Bank, Mumbai Branch are necessary parties to the suit and hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. It is further alleged that the Plaintiffs have concealed the material facts pertaining to the present suit. It is also averred that the Plaintiffs have taken advantage of the innocence of the Defendants and gone to the extent to get another loan sanctioned from HDFC Bank, Mumbai in the names of third party, with the intention to earn more money in collusion with accused property dealer Mr. Yogesh Gupta.
14. The Defendants have further submitted in the WS that the Defendants are absolute owners of the flat bearing no. E1/903, Sector-18B, Dwarka, New Delhi and on compulsion, they had approached the Plaintiffs and entered into an agreement to sell for the Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 18 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 allotment of the flat for the consideration amount of Rs. 51,00,000/- and the Plaintiffs and property dealer Mr. Yogesh Gupta had promised to repay the registration amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- at the time of registration of sale deed in the name of the purchaser. It is further alleged that the Plaintiff no. 1 in connivance with Mr. Yogesh Gupta had fixed the deal with the third party for excess sale consideration with ulterior motive to earn hefty profit out of the sale of the flat of the Defendants. Defendants further submitted that the Defendant no.1 had assured to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- as per the agreement executed on 18.11.2012 between the property dealer and the Defendants, however, the sale deed in favour of the Defendants had not been executed and hence, the Defendants had communicated the Bank for 'Stop Payment' on 03.07.2015. Defendants have further alleged that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- had been fixed as commission for the sale of the flat of the Defendants. It is also alleged that the Plaintiff no. 1 had received a cash amount of about Rs. 45,00,000/- from the third party purchasers on the day of execution of the sale deed dated 03.07.2015 and the notes were handed over in the presence of Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mrs. Priti Ahlawat, Sh. Maha Singh (father of Mrs. Priti Ahlawat) and representative of the HDFC Bank Mr. Chander Prakash and the Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 19 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 document writer.
15. Replication to the WS of defendants was filed by the plaintiffs wherein the plaintiffs have denied the averments of defendants and allegations made by the defendants as totally contrary, contradictory and inconsistent. Plaintiffs have averred that the Defendants themselves had got the sale deed executed in the name of the third party i.e. Mr. and Mrs. Ahlawat before the Registrar in Delhi. It is further alleged that the Defendants were the original allottee of DDA Flat and got the conveyance deed and possession deed from DDA only. Plaintiffs have further alleged in their replication that Mr. Yogesh Gupta (property dealer) is in connivance with the Defendants as the dispute between Sh. Yogesh Gupta and Defendants as stated in the WS have no role to play. It is further averred that the Plaintiffs had lodged an FIR No. 0942/2015 at P.S. Dwarka North u/s 420/34 IPC against the Defendants and Sh. Yogesh Gupta for their act of cheating. Plaintiffs have further averred that it is an admitted fact by the Defendants that they are claiming or restricting their claim only up to the recovery of Rs. 15,00,000/- which means that Defendants have no objection or no claim for the remaining balance out of a total of Rs. 26,95,885/-. Plaintiffs have further submitted that it is a settled law that any authority or attorney cannot be withdrawn without Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 20 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 knowledge, permission or consent of the person to whom it was given or at least, to the prejudice of the authority and attorney holder and revocation can only be by due process of law, not unilaterally.
16. Thereafter, an application under Order XVI r/w Section 151 of CPC was filed by the Defendants, however, the same was denied by the Ld. Court vide order dated 28.04.2017 and the issues were framed on the same day.
17. No admission-denial of documents was conducted on behalf of both parties. On 28.04.2017, following issues were framed:
(I) Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. OPD (II) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 26,95,885/-? OPP (III) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of pendentelite and future interest, if yes, at what rate? OPP (IV) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP (V) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (VI) Relief.
No other issue arose or pressed for by the parties. Matter was proceeded for plaintiff's evidence.
Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 21 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Proceedings of the Case (CS DJ ADJ 62/2017)
18. A perusal of the Court file reveals that summons for settlement of issues and notice of application under Order XXXIX R 1 and 2 of CPC were issued to the Defendants and on the same day, an application under Order VI R 17 of CPC was also filed by the Plaintiff to amend the plaint. Thereafter, on 09.03.2017, Written Statements were filed on behalf of all the Defendants and an application under Order VII R 11 of CPC was filed on behalf of Defendants no. 1 and 2 for rejection of plaint to which reply was duly filed by the Plaintiffs and the aforesaid application of the Defendants no. 1 and 2 under Order VII R 11 of CPC and under Order VIII R 1 of CPC for condonation of delay in filing the WS were allowed and disposed off vide order dated 16.02.2018. Thereafter, Replication was filed by the Plaintiffs to the written statements of the Defendants and in the meanwhile, an application under section 114 of CPC for review of order dated 16.02.2018, which was allowed vide order dated 23.10.2018 and thereafter, another application under Order VI R 17 of CPC was filed by the Plaintiff for amending the plaint which was also allowed vide order dated 16.04.2019 and matter was proceeded for arguments on the application under Order VII R 11 of CPC filed by Defendants no. 1 and 2.
Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 22 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017
19. In the WS filed by Defendants no. 1 and 2, it is alleged that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs G. Nataraju is bad in the eyes of law and not maintainable and therefore, is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order VII R 11 of CPC. It is further alleged that the Plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and have also concealed the true and material facts. It is also alleged that the suit filed by G. Nataraju is a counter blast to the recovery suit filed by the Tilak Raj Chawla. It is also alleged that the suit of the Plaintiff is hit / barred by provisions of Section 10 of CPC. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs themselves had made Defendants no. 3 and 4 registered owner in possession and that the relief claimed for permanent injunction is void.
20. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs themselves had admitted in their plaint that they had received the amount of sale consideration. It is also submitted that even as per the Plaintiffs, an agreement to sell and purchase and a receipt both dated 18.11.2012 were executed between them and Defendant no. 5. It is alleged that the Plaintiffs were having cash crunch and were unable to pay DDA and as such, Defendant no. 1 had paid Rs. 17,22,000/- by RTGS in the account of Plaintiff no. 1 on 24.12.2014 and further paid stamp duty expenses of Rs. 3,59,200/- to Plaintiff no. 1 on 27.12.2014 and Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 23 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 thereafter, when Plaintiffs showed their inability to pay for execution of conveyance deed on 20.03.2015 and as such, the Defendant no. 1 had paid Rs. 72,100/- to them by way of demand draft dated 19.03.2015. It is alleged that the Plaintiffs had raised the sale consideration to Rs. 85,00,000/- for the flat in question. Thereafter, it is alleged that Defendants no. 3 and 4 agreed to buy the said flat for Rs. 90,00,000/- and paid Rs. 40,00,000/- for the same on 15.06.2015 by way of cheque drawn on PNB Bank and the balance was to be paid within one month at the time of execution of sale deed. It is further alleged that in order to facilitate repayment of amounts from the proposed sale to Defendants no. 3 and 4, a specific savings account no. 117510014947 was opened on 18.05.2015 by Plaintiffs with Dena Bank and that the Plaintiffs had given authority to operate the said account to Defendant no. 1 for hassle free transfer of amount, on realization to his housing loan and savings account and the same was accepted by Dena Bank and thereafter, the said amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was transferred on 17.06.2015 to the housing loan account with Dena Bank, Mumbai Branch. It is also submitted that balance consideration amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid on 03.07.2015 by Defendants no. 3 and 4 vide two cheques of Rs. 24,55,000/- each, both dated 30.06.2015 drawn on HDFC bank and Rs. 90,000/- was Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 24 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 deducted for depositing TDS amount and the said cheques were duly handed over by the Plaintiffs to Defendant no. 1 for depositing in their savings bank account with Dena Bank, Dwarka branch. It is alleged that the Plaintiffs had thereafter, instructed the bank to freeze the said account without knowledge or intimation to Defendant no. 1 and consequently, Defendant no. 1 had submitted a request letter dated 06.07.2015 in regard to the same. It is further submitted that thereafter, the Defendant no. 1 had also informed Dena Bank, Mumbai branch about the aforesaid development vide email dated 08.07.2015 and accordingly, Dena Bank, Mumbai had made a request vide email dated 09.07.2015 to Dena Bank, Dwarka branch for transferring funds from Plaintiffs saving bank account to their housing loan account and in furtherance of the same, an amount of Rs. 22,14,115/- was transferred from Dwarka branch to housing loan account at Mumbai branch and that the balance amount of Rs. 26,95,885/- became disputed amount between Plaintiffs and Defendant no. 1. It is also submitted that as per the Plaintiffs, an agreement to sell and purchase and a receipt, both dated 18.11.2012 were executed between them and Defendant no. 5 and Defendants no. 1 and 2 have no role or knowledge of the same. It is further submitted that in light of the aforesaid events, Defendants no. 1 and 2 had filed a recovery suit Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 25 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide CS (OS) 3342/2015 for recovery of Rs. 26,95,885/- with interest wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had granted an interim stay vide order dated 06.11.2015 which suit was thereafter transferred to Dwarka Court on ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.
21. It is submitted that Plaintiffs themselves made Defendants no. 3 and 4 as registered owners in possession of the flat in question and that the said flat had never been a disputed property and Plaintiffs had never made any complaint regarding the same. It is submitted that all the dealings and transactions were done under due knowledge and consent of the Plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the consideration amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- was very much in the knowledge of the Plaintiffs with regard to dealing with Defendants no. 3 and 4. It is submitted that no cause of action arises against Defendants no. 1 and 2 and therefore, the suit of the Plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
22. In the Replication filed by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have denied the averments of the Defendants and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
23. Pleadings were completed and thereafter, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsels for the parties at bar that the present suit be consolidated with the suit bearing no. 16178/16 and that the evidence Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 26 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 be also read as common in both the matters. In view of the aforesaid submissions, both the suits were consolidated and clubbed together vide order dated 06.01.2024.
Common Evidence by the Parties
24. On 21.05.2018, PW-1 Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Ex. PW1/1 i.e. Original SPA dated 28.10.2015; Ex. PW1/2 i.e. certified copy of loan agreement dated 24.12.2014; original sanction letter dated 24.12.2014 as Ex. PW1/3; original RTGS slip dated 24.12.2014 as Ex. PW1/4; original RTGS slip dated 27.12.2014 as Ex.
PW1/5; original RTGS slip dated 31.12.2014 as Ex. PW1/6; original counter foil of cash deposit dated 16.05.2015 as Ex. PW1/7; original agreement to sell dated 18.05.2015 as Ex. PW1/8; original GPA dated 18.05.2015 as Ex. PW1/9; original SPA dated 18.05.2015 as Ex. PW1/10; original affidavit of defendants dated 18.05.2015 as Ex. PW1/11; original receipt of payment dated 18.05.2015 as Ex. PW1/12; original Will of Defendant no. 1 as Ex. PW1/13A; original Will of Defendant no. 2 as Ex. PW1/13B; original possession letter dated 18.05.2015 as Ex. PW1/14; original bank challans dated 03.05.2015 depositing cheques dated 30.06.2015 as Ex. PW1/15A and Ex. Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 27 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 PW1/15B; original letter dated 26.08.2015 as Ex. PW1/16; true copy of allotment letter dated 22.08.2014 as Ex. PW1/17; true copy of demand letter dated 28.08.2014 as Ex. PW1/18; true copy of agreement to sell along with receipt and demand draft dated 24.12.2014 as Ex. PW1/19A and Ex. PW1/19B; true copy of conveyance deed dated 26.12.2014 as Ex. PW1/20; true copy of possession letter dated 27.01.2015 as Ex. PW1/21 (colly); true copy of possession slip dated 18.03.2015 as Ex. PW1/22 (colly); copy of conveyance deed dated 20.03.2015 as Ex. PW1/23; copy of sale deed dated 03.07.2015 along with copy of cheque as Ex. PW1/24 (colly-17 pages); copy of statement of account for the period 16.05.2015 to 09.09.2015 as Ex. PW1/25; copy of statement of account for the period 16.10.2014 to 27.12.2014 as Ex. PW1/26.
25. However, Ex. PW1/17 to Ex. PW1/26 were de-exhibited and read as Mark P-1 to Mark P-10. Other documents were also relied upon i.e. copy of letter dated 24.12.2014 as Mark A; copy of demand drafts dated 24.11.2014 and 26.12.2014 as Mark B (colly-12 pages); copy of cash receipt dated 04.03.2015 as Mark C; copy of letter dated 19.03.2015 by Dena Bank as Mark D; copy of letter dated 19.03.2015 by DDA as Mark E; copy of e-mail dated 23.06.2015 as Mark F; copy of letter dated 06.07.2015 to Dena Bank as Mark G; copy of e-mail Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 28 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 dated 08.07.2015 as Mark H; copy of letter dated 07.08.2015 as Mark I; copy of letter dated 08.08.2015 by Dena Bank as Mark J; copy of term deposit receipt dated 11.08.2015 as Mark K; copy of criminal complaint dated 16.09.2015 as Mark L; copy of letter dated 01.10.2015 as Mark M; copy of legal notice dated 28.09.2015 as Mark N; copy of FIR No. 0942/2015 u/s 420/34 IPC as Mark O. PW-1 was cross examined and discharged.
26. During cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that Sh. Yogesh Gupta told him in December 2014 that the suit property was for sale. It is deposed that Mr. Yogesh Gupta in the presence of G. Nataraju and with his concurrence had fixed the consideration amount of Rs. 82.5 lakhs plus Rs. 1.5 lakhs as application money to be paid by Mr. G. Nataraju to DDA and that he was not aware about any previous transaction between Mr. Yogesh Gupta and Mr. G. Nataraju. It is further deposed that the agreement was signed on 24.12.2014 and on the same day, PW-1 got sanctioned the home loan for the amount of Rs. 62,00,000/- from Dena Bank, Versova Branch, Mumbai. He further deposed that he had not given any money to Sh. Yogesh Gupta. He admitted that he had given an undertaking to Dena Bank, Mumbai to deposit the conveyance deed executed between the DDA as well as the seller but he had not deposited the same and voluntarily stated that Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 29 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 the same was not deposited as the bank was given FDR as security for the said loan and also the Defendants had started making disputes for the transaction. He deposed that they were demanding more money than agreed to.
27. Thereafter, the witness was questioned as to whether he had agreed to pay the amount as per the agreement executed between Sh. Yogesh Gupta and Sh. G. Nataraju to which PW-1 answered that he was not aware of any agreement executed between Sh. G. Nataraju and Sh. Yogesh Gupta. He was further questioned as to whether he was authorized to operate the saving bank account of Defendants no. 1 and 2 in Dena Bank, Dwarka, New Delhi by the Defendants to which PW-1 answered in affirmative and deposed that the authority to operate the account was unilaterally withdrawn by Defendants no. 1 and 2 on 06.07.2015. He further deposed that he had not received any cash amount from Sh. Yogesh Gupta. He denied the suggestion that the sale consideration of the property in question was agreed for a sum of Rs. 1.55 crores with subsequent purchasers Ms. Preeti Ahlawat and Mr. Rajit Kumar. PW-1 was discharged thereafter, on 16.08.2018. Thereafter, PW-2 Sh. Suresh Kumar Jatav, PW-3 Ms. Shweta Patel, PW-4 Smt. Suman Gupta (Advocate) and PW-5 Smt. Geeta Mala were summoned witnesses. They were examined, cross examined and Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 30 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 discharged on different dates subsequently. No other witness was examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff's evidence was closed vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs recorded on 19.08.2019. Thereafter, matter was proceeded for Defendant's evidence.
28. On 20.11.2019, DW-1 Sh. G. Nataraju tendered his evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Copy of acknowledgement slip no. 007330007 as Mark D-A;
(ii) Copy of draw results dated 18.04.2011 as Mark D-B;
(iii) Copy of price list fixed by DDA as Mark D-C (objected to);
(iv) Copy of agreement dated 18.11.2012 between Defendant no. 1 and Sh. Yogesh Gupta as Mark D-D;
(v) Copy of receipt dated 18.11.2012 as Mark D-E; (vi) Copy of statement of account of bank account no.
50100065043382 maintained with HDFC Bank, Dwarka as Ex.
DW1/1 (OSR);
(vii) CD as Ex. DW1/2 (Objected to by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff as document is not supported by a required certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act);
(viii) Copy of letter dated 03.07.2015 to Bank Manager, Dena Bank, Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 31 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Sector 12, Dwarka by the deponent as Ex. DW1/3 (OSR);
(ix) Copy of letters dated 13.08.2015 as Ex. DW1/4 and Ex. DW1/5 (OSR) (Objected by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on the ground that the documents have been filed at the stage of evidence without Court's permission);
(x) Copy of letter issued by bank official on 13.08.2015 as Ex. DW1/6 (OSR) (Objected by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on the ground that the said document has been filed at the stage of evidence without Court's permission);
(xi) Copy of notice dated 28.09.2015 as Ex. DW1/7 (OSR) (Objected by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on the ground that the said document has been filed at the stage of evidence without Court's permission);
(xii) Copy of legal notice dated 12.04.2016 as Ex. DW1/8 (Objected by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on the ground that the said document has been filed at the stage of evidence without Court's permission);
(xiii) Tracking report of sending legal notice dated 12.04.2016 served on 18.04.2016 as Ex. DW1/9 to Ex. DW1/11 (Objected by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on the ground that the said document has been filed at the stage of evidence without Court's permission and not supported by an affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 32 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Act);
(xiv) Notice dated 04.01.2016 and reply dated 16.02.2016 as Mark D-F and Mark D-G (Objected by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on the ground that the said document has been filed at the stage of evidence without Court's permission) and
(xv) Copy of statement of bank account no. 117510014947 maintained with Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch as Ex. DW1/5 (OSR) (Objected by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on the ground that the said document has been filed at the stage of evidence without Court's permission);
Ex. DW1/12 was de-exhibited as the same was neither filed nor available at the stage of recording of evidence. Thereafter, DW-1 was cross examined at length on various dates and discharged.
29. During cross-examination, DW-1 deposed that the market value of the flat in question was Rs. 1,45,00,000/- and after making the payment to DDA worth approximately Rs. 77,00,000/-, the balance amount of Rs. 51,00,000/- was receivable by him. He denied the suggestion that they were well aware of the value of the flat at the time of applying for the same as the value of the flat is very much written in the application and prospectus of DDA. He admitted that before entering any negotiation or deal with the Plaintiffs, they were Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 33 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 already in contact and dealing with Sh. Yogesh Gupta, property broker. He deposed that during meeting with Sh. Yogesh Gupta and the Defendants in the year 2014-15, Plaintiff no. 1 had agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- plus Rs. 1,50,000/- for application money to DDA as receivable from Sh. Yogesh Gupta to the Defendants. He further admitted that no written agreement or undertaking was made while dealing with Sh. Yogesh Gupta and Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla at the initial stage of negotiating for the flat in question. He deposed that he is not aware of the amount of actual deal with the Plaintiff no. 1 for the flat in question. He denied the suggestion that he had ever entered into a final amount of deal of Rs. 82,50,000/- with the Plaintiff no. 1 for the said flat. He deposed that they were not allowed to read the documents Ex. PW1/19A. Relevant portion of the cross-examination is extracted herein:
".........The original allotment slip and the allotment letter which is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/17 for the flat in question was handed over by me to Sh. Yogesh Gupta, property dealer and he handed over the same to the plaintiff no. 1 at the initial stage of negotiation of the flat and finalizing the deal. It is correct that as per out stand / contention only the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- is receivable by us from Sh. Yogesh Gupta, property dealer at initial stage before coming Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 34 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 of plaintiff no. 1 in picture.........." He further deposed that he and his wife have not entered any document regarding the flat in question with the Plaintiffs. He deposed that the Plaintiff no. 1 had taken an excuse that the documents in question are necessary for electricity and water connection purpose in the flat in question and that is why, they had signed the same. He admitted that he and his wife have not filed any case or complaint against the Plaintiff no. 1 regarding objection to the said documents of May 2015 already exhibited as Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/14. He also deposed that Plaintiff no. 1 had brought Rajat Kumar and Preeti Ahlawat to buy the flat in question. He voluntarily stated that Preeti Ahlawat and Rajat Kumar were sitting in the office of Sh. Yogesh Gupta and that they had come for the documentation and registration of the flat along with the Plaintiff no. 1. He deposed that he had not taken any loan for the flat in question but the loan was taken by Plaintiff no. 1 and voluntarily stated that the loan was also taken by Ms. Preeti Ahlawat and both the loans were taken separately on the same property. He further deposed that he had duly executed the documents as the Plaintiff no. 1 had assured him to repay all the balance outstanding amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- whereas, the outstanding loan amount would be repaid by the concerned borrowers respectively.
Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 35 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017
30. During further cross-examination, DW-1 deposed that he had neither inquired nor aware that how much payment in what manner and from what source was being made to the Department and otherwise from the time he came in contact with the Plaintiff no. 1 and Sh. Yogesh Gupta regarding the suit property till the time their terms soured and disputed had occurred between them. He admitted that Plaintiff no. 1 was duly authorized to operate the bank account at Dena Bank, Sector 12, Dwarka on their behalf. He further deposed that he and his wife had authorized Plaintiff no. 1 in the bank records but they have not filed any separate authority letter. He deposed that they had authorized the Plaintiff no. 1 Mr. T.R. Chawla through power of attorney vide GPA dated 18.05.2015, however, they were unaware about the contents of the said GPA. Further, DW-1 admitted that he and his wife have not filed any document or proceeding before any competent authority or any legal notice seeking cancellation of the aforesaid GPA dated 18.05.2015. He deposed that they were under an impression that the said GPA was only for the electricity and water connection purpose. He admitted that they had not inquired from the Plaintiff no. 1 that whether the abovesaid sale proposal for the suit property to other / third party had been finalized or not or for what price or in what condition or what is the name or detail of prospective Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 36 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 buyer. He further admitted that when the suit property was sold by him and his wife in favour of Preeti and Rajat Ahlawat through registered sale deed before the Registrar, Janak Puri, two cheques totaling an amount of Rs. 49,10,000/- were given by Preeti and Rajat to him and his wife against due signatures and the said two cheques were handed over by them to Sh. T.R. Chawla / Plaintiff no. 1 for being realized in his favour. DW-1 was further cross examined and discharged on 31.01.2023.
31. On 31.01.2023, DW-2 Ms. S. Sujatha W/o Sh. G. Nataraju tendered her evidence by way of affidavit exhibited as Ex. DW-2/A, cross examined and discharged. Thereafter, DE was closed on behalf of the Defendants no. 1 and 2 vide separate statement recorded by the Ld. Counsel for Defendants no. 1 and 2 on 31.01.2023 and matter was heard on final arguments. Thereafter, vide separate statement, application for reopening of evidence in CS DJ ADJ 62/17 was withdrawn by Defendants no. 3 and 4 and matter was reserved for judgment.
Contention of the Parties
32. Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties and written submissions also filed. Plaintiff has relied upon a judgment in Thangam and Anr. Vs. Navamani Ammal in Civil Appeal no. Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 37 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 8935/2011. Ld. Counsel for Tilak Raj Chawla has argued that the Defendants have failed to prove their stand taken by them in the proceedings and have raised false claims raised by them against the Plaintiffs through their cross-examination as DW-1 and DW-2. It is submitted that during cross-examination of PW-1, it was deposed by him that he was not aware of any agreement executed between Sh. G. Nataraju and Sh. Yogesh Gupta and the said reply was not denied by way of any suggestion. Further, it was also not denied by way of any suggestion that Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla was authorized to operate the bank account of the Defendants no. 1 and 2 and that the authority was unilaterally withdrawn by Defendants no. 1 and 2 on 06.07.2015. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla that the summoned witnesses PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have affirmed the stand of the Plaintiffs. It was affirmed by PW-4 that the documents dated 18.05.2015 were duly executed under the signatures of the parties i.e. Tilak Raj Chawla, Sh. G. Nataraju and his wife bearing signatures on her notary register along with IDs, thumb impressions, photographs and signatures of the parties and hence, the claim of the Defendants was proved wrong.
33. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs further submitted that during the cross-examination of DW-1, the stand of the Plaintiffs regarding Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 38 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 inability of the Defendants to arrange for the payment of such huge amount for getting possession of the flat in their favour was proved in the favour of the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that DW-1 has admitted that there was no written agreement or undertaking while dealing with Sh. Yogesh Gupta and Tilak Raj Chawla at the initial stage of negotiation for the flat in question. It is further submitted that DW-1 has affirmed that his alleged claim was only up to Rs. 15,00,000/- only and that they have not filed any case or complaint against Mr. T.R Chawla regarding objection to the documents of May 2015 already exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/14. He further submitted that Defendants were not only well aware of the dealing of the said flat in question and sale of the same to Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar but also duly got the sale deed of the flat registered in their favour before the Sub- Registrar, Janak Puri, New Delhi under their signatures and presence without any objection of any sort. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff that DW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that they had not intimated Plaintiff no. 1 at the time of withdrawing of his authority to operate Dena Bank account with Sector 12 Branch, Dwarka, New Delhi.
34. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff further submits that DW-2, during her cross-examination admits that they were not capable of arranging the Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 39 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 funds with respect to the flat in question and that they had not given any advance intimation while revoking the operation of their bank account to the Plaintiff Sh. T.R. Chawla regarding withdrawal of his authority to operate the same. He further submits that the Defendants have neither summoned Mr. Yogesh Gupta as necessary party to prove their contentions nor there was any claim with Sh. Yogesh Gupta for which there was any liability taken by the Plaintiffs. He further submits that even if there is any claim or dispute as alleged regarding money, then it is only between Sh. G. Nataraju, his wife and Sh. Yogesh Gupta as the Plaintiffs were not in the picture at that point of time.
35. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for G. Nataraju has submitted that Mr. G. Nataraju had applied for allotment of an HIG flat with DDA in the year 2010 and subsequently, DDA had issued an allotment cum demand letter for which Mr. G. Nataraju was required to pay Rs. 77,22,025/- by 26.12.2014 with DDA, however, Mr. G. Nataraju had no funds to pay to the DDA and in the meantime, Mr. G. Nataraju had come in contact with Mr. Yogesh Gupta who was a property dealer and who had brought them in contact with Mr. T.R. Chawla. Ld. Counsel for Mr. G. Nataraju has alleged that Mr. T.R. Chawla had fraudulently made a sale deed dated 24.12.2014 on the same day, his Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 40 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 housing loan was sanctioned from Dena Bank, Mumbai. It is submitted that Mr. T.R. Chawla had collected the conveyance deed from the DDA himself, however, the said documents should have been collected by the bank official but the bank official had helped Mr. T.R. Chawla over the board as he had been associated with the bank in a senior position. It is alleged that Mr. G. Nataraju was kept in dark throughout the deal whereas, Mr. T.R. Chawla and Mr. Yogesh Gupta had been illegally and dishonestly made wrongful gains from third parties. Ld. Counsel further submits that Mr. G. Nataraju had never entered into a sale agreement with Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar. It is further submitted that Mr. G. Nataraju had agreed and fulfilled the registration formalities only after a promise made by Mr. T.R. Chawla and Mr. Yogesh Gupta that the balance amount would be paid immediately after the completion of registration formalities in favour of Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar. It is submitted that Mr. Ranjeet Kumar had handed over a cash amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- to Mr. Yogesh Gupta, who in turn handed over the same to Mr. T.R. Chawla. Further, Mr. Yogesh Gupta had collected drafts for an amount of Rs. 49,10,000/- issued in favour of Mr. G. Nataraju which was later deposited into his savings account. He pertinently submits that the entire housing loan sanctioned to Mr. T.R. Chawla was paid through Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 41 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 the sale consideration received from the third parties i.e. Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar who are Defendants no. 3 and 4 respectively.
Findings
36. I have perused the record and heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. At the outset, it may be stated that the parties shall be referred to henceforth, by their names in order to avoid confusion and for the sake of convenience.
37. The whole litigation started with the suit filed by Tilak Raj Chawla and his son. It was the case of Tilak Raj Chawla that he came into contact with G. Nataraju who along with his wife S. Sujatha had been allotted a flat by the DDA but who had no money to pay the sum of Rs. 77,22,025/- demanded by the DDA within the time schedule and as they did not want to lose their booking amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, G. Nataraju and his wife arranged with Tilak Raj Chawla that he would purchase the DDA flat from them for a consideration of Rs. 82,50,000/- which was exclusive of the booking amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Tilak Raj Chawla, in order to fund the purchase of the flat, took a bank loan of Rs. 62,00,000/- and the disbursement of the loan was made directly to DDA by the said Dena Bank and the conveyance deed which was to be executed in favour of G. Nataraju and his wife Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 42 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 was also to be delivered to Dena Bank. Dena Bank issued seven demand drafts dated 24.12.2014 totaling a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- in the name of DDA and the same were deposited by Tilak Raj Chawla. Tilak Raj Chawla furthermore, paid a sum of Rs. 17,22,000/- by RTGS to G. Nataraju and a further sum of Rs. 3,59,200/- also by RTGS and also refunded sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to G. Nataraju in lieu of the booking amount that had been paid by him to DDA for participation in the lucky draw of flats. The conveyance deed in favour of G. Nataraju and his wife S. Sujatha was executed on 20.03.2015 and the sum of Rs. 72,100/- was also paid by Tilak Raj Chawla to G. Nataraju for the registration fees of the conveyance deed and the said conveyance deed was registered at the office of the Sub- Registrar.
38. Subsequently, on 18.05.2015, G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha executed the documents such as the agreement to sell, GPA, receipt, Will, SPA, affidavit, etc in favour of Tilak Raj Chawla for the higher sale consideration of Rs. 85,00,000/-, however, the said transaction did not reach fruition as the sellers started making further demands and therefore, as Tilak Raj Chawla was not in position to pay the higher price, a further third party was involved who could purchase the flat and allow T.R. Chawla to recoup his investment. Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 43 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Subsequently, Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar came into the picture who jointly agreed to purchase the flat for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- was paid by them by way of cheque in favour of G. Nataraju and the remaining balance of Rs. 50,00,000/- was to be paid within one month at the time of execution of sale deed. A savings account was opened in Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch at Sector 12, New Delhi in the name of G. Nataraju and his wife and they also gave authority to Tilak Raj Chawla to operate the said account. The cheque of Rs. 40,00,000/- was deposited by T.R. Chawla in the aforesaid savings account on 17.06.2015 and the same was thereafter, credited to the home loan account maintained with Dena Bank, Versova Branch, Mumbai. The balance amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid on 03.07.2015 by Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar by way of two cheques after deduction of Rs. 90,000/- as TDS and the said cheques were handed over to T. R. Chawla for depositing the same in the savings account of G. Nataraju at Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch. Thereafter, it came to the attention of T.R. Chawla that G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha had requested the bank to revoke the authority given by them to T.R. Chawla for operating the bank account and for placing a freeze on withdrawals. T.R. Chawla, thereafter, informed Dena Bank, Versova Branch, Mumbai about the same who then wrote Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 44 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 to Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch with request to transfer the funds from the savings bank account to the housing loan account on the principle of banker's general lien and thereafter, on 11.08.2015, a sum of Rs. 22,14,115/- was transferred from the said account in Dwarka Branch to the housing loan account of Versova Branch. The balance amount of Rs. 26,95,885/- was transferred to an interest bearing fixed deposit account.
39. It may be noted that the aforesaid contentions and facts are contained in paras 5 to 31 of the plaint filed by T.R. Chawla. Here, we may note the parawise reply of G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha in their written statement. The same is extracted herein:
"1. That the contents of Para No;1 to 4 of the present suit are matter of record, and need no reply from the defendants. It is submitted that the defendant No;1 is retired Army man, and doing services of packers and movers in the names of SANIK CARGO MOVERS in Delhi, and the Defendant No; 2 is the victim of Live Bomb Blast occurred in the sarojini Nagar Market, Delhi in the year '2005, she is House wife.
2. That the contents of Para nos: 5 to 20 of the present suit are denied for want of knowledge the plaintiffs put to strict proof of the same, it is submitted that the fact are misconceived in the corresponding paragraphs, it is submitted that the defendants were met the property Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 45 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 dealer cum accused Mr.Yogesh Gupta, through local broker Mr.Chader Prakash for getting assistance with regard to allotted flat in Dwarka by DDA in the name of defendant no;1,on 18-11-2012, who offered Rs.51,000,00/- to the defendants for the sale of the allotment of Flat No; E-1B/903. DDA Sector-18-B, Dwarka (HIG). Who further assured that he will repay the registration amount paid by the defendant at the time of application, on execution of sale deed in favor of the purchaser. The defendants committed mistake that they mistakenly understood, the said Property Dealer is an gentle man, as such the defendants handed over the allotment letter to him and accepted a cheque for the amount of Rs.7,000,00/-, Who taken custody of 2 blank signed cheques of SBI leaves from defendnats, the said property dealer also assured to remit the sale prize as well as the charges levy by the DDA for the conveyance and other formalities through the buyer of the flat of defendants and the accused Mr.Yogesh Gupta got assurance from defendants that he and his wife will not raise any more demand at the time of registration of sale deed in the name of buyer, and he will fix the sale consideration on his own. It is further submitted that who also taken signatures of defendants in the printed Agreement to sale in the presence of his younger brother Umesh Gupta, and chander Prakash A Copy of the Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 46 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 said agreement is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure D-1.
3. On 15-03-2013, as per the agreement by Mr.Yogesh Gupta, who handed over a cheque for the amount of Rs.25,000,00/- bearing number 399938 of the HDFC Bank, Dwarka. On enquiry about the account holder of the cheque Mrs. Baby Bodwal, he replied that she is partner of the business running by him. On the same day the property dealer handed over cash amount of Rs. 4,000,00/- to my client. On bounced the Cheque of Mrs. Baby Bodwal, he handed over another cheque No; 399940 of Mrs.Baby Bodwal. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendants received totally Rs. 36,000,00/- from the said property dealer in terms of agreement for sale of allotment letter. It is submitted that on receipt of demand letter from DDA, the defendants approached the property dealer and handed over the same to him, as per his advise opened the account in HDFC Bank, Dwarka for the conveniences to remit the sale prize as well as the charges of conveyance deed to DDA. Who enter his mobile number 9310938103 in the HDFC Bank account of defendants, and also taken custody of 10 cheque leaves signed in blank by the defendants. The entire operation of the said bank account No;50100065043382 of HDFC, Dwarka was in his custody, accordingly transacted to the tune of Rs.17,02,000/- without the knowledge of defendants and who never Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 47 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 used the said account for remittance of DDA. The same on record of the bank statement. A Copy of the statements is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure D-2. That in the moth of December 2014, Mr.Yogesh Gupta informed to defendants that he finalized the deal for the sale of the flat and fixed the sale consideration as Rs.1,45,000,00/- and the buyer name is Mr.T.R.Chawla from Mumbai, (Plaintiff No;1) who promised to remit the sale price and charges to DDA for the completes the formalities, accordingly Mr. T.R.Chawla on 24-12-2014 sent Rs.17,22,000/- by way of RTGS from Mumbai, and on 26-12- 2014, Mr.T.R.Chawla and accused Mr.Yogesh Gupta, visited DDA office at INA, and deposited Draft of Rs. 60,000,00/- from the Mumbai bank and Rs.17,22,025/- draft from the bank of my client. On 27-12-2014, the purchaser Mr.T.R.Chawla sent Rs.3,59,200/- through RTGS from Mumbai, the defendants immediately on the same day transfer the said amount to DDA. On 31-12-2014, the purchaser Mr.T.R.Chawla Rs.1,50,000/- through NEFT from Mumbai sent as instructed by Mr.Yogesh Gupta. On 18-03-2015 the defendants received possession letter from DDA. The same was handed over to Mr.Yogesh Gupta. That On 20-03-2015, Mr. Yogesh Gupta informed that Mr.T.R.Chawla visited Delhi for the register the conveyance deed in the name of defendant no;1. Accordingly defendants visited the Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 48 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 DDA office at INA and completed the formalities for registration of conveyance deed in the name of defendnats and Mr.T.R.Chawla stand as witness. Defendant no;1 given authority to Mr.T.R.Chawla for collect the Register Conveyance Deed from DDA as instructed by Mr.Yogesh Gupta. It is pertinent to mention here that the Purchaser Mr.T.R.Chawla has not taken signatures in any documents from the defendants till date. On 18-05-2015,the buyer Mr.T.R.Chawla instructed to open an account in the Dena Bank at Dwarka, on refusal, the property dealer advised the defendants that since the buyer Mr.T.R.Chawla required to completes all formalities need the account for his convenience. Mr.T.R.Chawla informed to defendants that he settled Rs.36,000,00/- to Mr.Yogesh Gupta alongwith Commission of Rs.10,000,00/- and further he will pay the balance agreed amount of Rs.15,000,00/-to defendants and the registration of sale deed fixed on 16-06-2015. Accordingly also instructed to close the HDFC Account, and defendants executed Power of Attorney in the name of buyer Mr.T.R.Chawla and no other documents were not executed by the defendants. A copy of the said power of Attorney is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure D-3.
4. That the Defendants open the Account No; 117510014947 in Dena Bank, Dwarka, the Plaintiff No;1 enter his mobile number Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 49 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 09029980843 for his convenience to operate the account. The defendants issued letter for close the HDFC Account in Dwarka controlled by the property dealer, but despite of closing instructions, misused the blank signed cheques of defendants, who intentionally not return the unused Cheque leaves. On 07-07-2015, the defendant No:1 written a communication to return the same Nos; 000000000005 to 0000000000010 along with return the 2 blank cheques of SBI account of defendants. A Copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure D-4.
5. It is submitted that the buyer Mr.T.R.Chawla and accused Yogesh Gupta hetched up conspiracy and committed serious offences by way of fixed the sale consideration with third parties, and went to the extend to get another housing loan in the names of third parties from HDFC Mumbai. The accused persons gone to the extent to makes fabricated documents and committed illegal acts with ulterior motive to earn hefty amounts on sale of the flat of defendants. In the end of May 2015, Mr.T.R.Chawla (Plaintiff No;1) informed that he and accused Mr.Yogesh Gupta were finalised sale of the flat with third parties and who promised to settle the remaining agreed amount of Rs.15,000,00/- defendants, on registration of sale deed in the names of third parties.
Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 50 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017
6. That on 03-07-2015. As instructed by the accused Mr.Yogesh Gupta and Mr.T.R.Chawla, the defendant no;1 alongwith his wife reached office of the accused Yogesh Gupta for receiving remaining balance of Rs.15,000,00/- as promised by the accused as well as Mr.T.R.Chawla, both were disputed about the contributions for the settlement to defendnats, finally accused instructed the defendants to reach Sub-Registrar Office at Janakpuri, Accused Mr.Yogesh Gupta, Mr.Umesh Gupta, Mr.T.R.Chawla, Mr.Chander Prakash, reached the entrance of sub-registrar office alongwith the third parties Mr.Rajit Kumar, Ms. Preeti Ahlawat, her father Mr.Maha Singh, and the representative of HDFC Bank, all are went into the office of document writer at Ist Floor office, where defendnats were forced to put signatures in the printed sale deed, the innocent defendants demanded Rs.15,000,00/- balance amount, the accused Yogesh Gupta informed that the registered Draft will be deposited into the defendants' account only after deduct the balance amount of Rs.15,000,00/- the defendnants allow Mr.T.R.Chawla to recover the remaining amount. The defendants executed sale deed, at that time third party Mr.Rajit Kumar handed over cash amount of Rs.45,000,00/- to accused Yogesh Gupta, who counted the currencies in the presence of document writer and handed over to Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 51 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Mr.T.R.Chawla, in the office of the document writer engaged by your client accused Yogesh Gupta.
7. That on suspicious circumstances the defendants went to the bank for instruct STOP Payment, Mr.T.R.Chawla deposited the drafts for the amount of Rs.49,10,000/- into the account of defendants. A Copy of the letter dated; 03-07-2015 is annexed Therewith and marked as Annexure D-5. Mr.T.R.Chawla and accused Yogesh Gupta were used there criminal force to cheat the innocent defendants in so many ways, By God's grace, the culprits were not succeeded, on registration of criminal complaint in the Economical Offence Wing of Delhi Police, the plaintiff No;1 and accused Yogesh Gupta were made fabricated documents in order to harass the defendants in so many ways. Mr.T,R, Chawla (Plaintiff No;1) and the accused Mr.Yogesh Gupta cannot escape from the criminal liabilities for the conspiracy hatched by connivance with each other.
8. It is submitted that the contents of para no;21 to36 of the present suit are wrong and denied, which are based on wrong informations. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendants never made any agreement of sale of the allotment with any one except the power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff No;1, It is the handi works of the Plaintiff No;1 and Mr.Yogesh Gupta for the criminal intention to ear Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 52 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 hefty amounts from the illegal transactions with third parties in connaivance with each other, out of sale of flat of defendants.
9. That the contents of para no:37 to 41 of the present suit are matter of record needs no reply, the contents of legal paras of the plaint, the defendants need not reply, the plaintiffs not at all entitled to get any such reliefs from this Hon'ble Court as mentioned in the corresponding paras, it is submitted that the defendants reserve their legal rights to claim damages, compensation and any other reliefs against the plaintiffs and the wrong doers(White colored Criminals). PRAYER That the last para is the Prayer clause which is wrong and denied. In the view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the present suit with costs.
Pass any such order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice."
40. A perusal of the written statement would show that the Defendants G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha have not given the parawise reply to the plaint of the Plaintiff T.R. Chawla. Therefore, written statement has to be examined even more carefully to ascertain the Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 53 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 defence of G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha and also to understand the suit filed by them as the averments in the written statement are same as the averments in the plaint of the suit filed by them. From a reading of the pleadings, the essence of the defence can be boiled down to the following points:
(a) G. Nataraju alleges that he met one broker Yogesh Gupta who offered Rs. 51,00,000/- for the sale of the DDA flat which had been allotted to them vide the draw. The sale price agreed upon was Rs.
51,00,000/-.
(b) Mr. Yogesh Gupta paid a total sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- to G. Nataraju and Rs. 15,00,000/- remained to be paid.
(c) In December 2014, Yogesh Gupta informed them that the deal of the flat had been finalized with T.R. Chawla for the sum of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-.
(d) G. Nataraju admits the RTGS transfers of Rs. 17,22,000/-, admits the payment of Rs. 60,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn by Dena Bank, admits the receipt of sum of Rs. 3,59,200/- and the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid on 31.12.2014.
(e) They admit the conveyance deed executed in their favour and that the same was handed over by T.R. Chawla to Dena Bank and that he had received the said conveyance deed from the DDA. Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 54 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017
(f) They further admit the opening of the savings bank account in Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch and that authority was given by them to T.R. Chawla.
(g) They further allege that T.R. Chawla had informed them that he had settled Rs. 36,00,000/- with Mr. Yogesh Gupta along with commission of Rs. 10,00,000/- and that he would further pay an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to G. Nataraju and his wife S. Sujatha at the time of registration of sale deed.
(h) They admit that they executed a sale deed finally in favour of Ranjeet Kumar and Preeti Ahlawat and say that they demanded Rs. 15,00,000/- but the same was not given to them.
41. It has to be now ascertained as to which of the stories is the true one on a balance of probabilities. Both parties lay claim to the monies lying in Dena Bank, Dwarka branch amounting to sum of Rs. 26,85,995/- in a fixed deposit by the said bank. This was the sum paid by Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar as the sale consideration of the flat sold by G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha.
42. The following observations and inferences can be drawn from the record:
(a) It is pertinent to note that G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha have admitted the execution of the agreement to sell dated 18.09.2015 Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr.
G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 55 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 which is Ex. PW1/8 showing that a sum of Rs. 83,10,000/- had been paid through various modes to them. The said agreement records that the sale consideration of Rs. 85,00,000/- has been agreed to between the parties. They have also admitted to the execution of documents namely GPA Ex. PW1/9, SPA Ex. PW1/10, Affidavit Ex. PW1/11 and Receipt Ex. PW1/12, Will Ex. PW1/13A and Ex. PW1/13B. They have also admitted to the execution of sale deed in favour of Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar on 03.07.2015 wherein the sale deed records that the parties have agreed for the sale of the property for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000/-. The story of the Defendants G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha that they had agreed only for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- does not stand scrutiny. There is no evidence to show that they were hoodwinked at the time of execution of the sale deed. G. Nataraju who was examined as DW-1 has deposed that he was working with Indian Army and is now running a business in the name of Sainik Packers and Movers for almost 15 years. The pleadings do not mention as to how the Defendants G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha were convinced into signing the sale deed mentioning a different sale consideration than that agreed to by the Defendants G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha. It is not their case that they are illiterate and unable to read the documents being signed by them. Certainly, their claim that the Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 56 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 sale consideration of the flat was supposed to be Rs. 1,45,00,000/- is suspicious as there is no explanation as to how their would be such sudden and drastic appreciation in the property for which the DDA had admittedly demanded a sum of Rs. 77,00,000/- approximately.
(b) G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha allege in their suit that they approached Yogesh Gupta for sale of the allotted DDA flat who agreed to get the flat sold for a sum of Rs. 51,00,000/- plus the registration amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is alleged in para 4 of their suit that Yogesh Gupta obtained their signatures on an agreement dated 18.11.2012. However, this agreement was not proved by G. Nataraju in the manner prescribed by law as the original was never produced and only the photocopy was produced before the Court and marked as Mark D-D. Once, it is the claim of any party that an agreement has been reduced to writing, they can only prove the agreement by production of the said document. Indubitably, the same has to be produced and proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act which would be applicable to the present dispute. The law requires that the document be proved by production of the original i.e. the primary evidence and only in the cases under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act can a party prove a document by way of secondary evidence. It has not been pleaded by G. Nataraju at any Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 57 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 point of time that any of the provisions of Section 65 are applicable in the present case. Therefore, their claim that there was an agreement between G. Nataraju and Yogesh Gupta for the sale of the flat for a sum of Rs. 51,00,000/- remains unproved. It is pertinent to note that in all the documents executed between T.R. Chawla and G. Nataraju, there is no reference to the document Mark D-D which would probabilize the version of G. Nataraju. There is absolutely no corroborative evidence to show that T.R. Chawla had agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to G. Nataraju for purchase of flat.
(c) On the other hand, I find that the facts as pleaded by T.R. Chawla are more probable and have been proved by corroborative evidence. It has been proved that G. Nataraju accepted the amounts without any immediate protest including facilitating the deposit of sale consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/- by Dena Bank to DDA. The said method was unusual in as much as the bank granted the loan to T.R. Chawla in absence of a registered sale deed and in fact, deposited the home loan amount with DDA directly when the conveyance deed was in fact, registered in favour of G. Nataraju and not T.R. Chawla. It has also been admitted by G. Nataraju that he also accepted the RTGS amounts of Rs. 17,22,000/-, Rs. 3,59,200/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- and that the same were then used to pay the DDA and get registered the Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 58 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 conveyance deed in his favour. The documents placed on record by T.R. Chawla in fact, convincingly show the entire transaction vide which he secured home loan from Dena Bank and thereafter, also show that Dena Bank prepared demand drafts amounting to Rs. 60,00,000/- crediting the DDA. The evidence is also convincing on the point that the Defendants G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha had given free consent to the transaction and had allowed T.R. Chawla to receive the registered conveyance deed executed by DDA in their favour and deposit the same with the Dena Bank who had created a charge on the immovable property in consideration of the home loan granted to T.R. Chawla.
(d) It is also the proven case that the Defendants G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha consented to the opening of the savings bank account at Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch on 18.05.2015 and that they also authorized the said account to be operated by T.R. Chawla. It is also proved that they allowed T.R. Chawla to deposit cheque of Rs. 40,00,000/- and the two cheques of Rs. 24,55,000/- issued by Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar into the said savings bank account and in fact, the home loan amount availed by T.R. Chawla was also satisfied from the said consideration amount.
(e) There is no evidence on record to support the claim of G. Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 59 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Nataraju that T.R. Chawla had agreed to pay a separate sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- which was to be originally paid by Yogesh Gupta as alleged by them. I have already found that G. Nataraju could not prove the alleged agreement Mark D-D that he entered into with Yogesh Gupta. On the other hand, the manner in which the transaction unfolded as per the version of T.R. Chawla, appears to be much more probable especially when the contents of the document agreement to sell Ex. PW1/8 is taken into account. During the course of cross- examination, G. Nataraju (DW-1) admitted that the DDA had demanded Rs. 77,00,000/- approximately after the lucky draw of the flats in favour of G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha. He has also admitted that he did not have the financial capacity to pay this huge amount to DDA and that is why, he contacted a property broker Chander Prakash and Yogesh Gupta. It is pertinent to note here the improvised version of G. Nataraju during the cross-examination.
".......
Vol. We for the abovesaid purpose contacted Sh. Chander Prakash who is the local broker and Sh. Chander Prakash took us to Sh. Yogesh Gupta who is also a property broker of Dwarka. It is correct that we were too poor, hence, unable to pay the amount to DDA, hence, was looking for some property dealer to finalize the deal and Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 60 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 get the flat allotted. Vol. The market value of the flat was Rs. 1,45,00,000/- and after making the payment to DDA worth approximately Rs. 77,00,000/-, the balance amount of Rs. 51,00,000/- was receivable by me. Again stated, amount of Rs. 51,00,000/- was receivable to me.
.........."
Here it can be seen that huge improvisation has been made by G. Nataraju in his cross-examination by producing a version that is not present in his pleadings or his examination-in-chief and is also contrary to his stand. It is claimed by him that the market value was Rs. 1,45,00,000/-. It is claimed by him that from the very outset, he was to receive Rs. 51,00,000/- as the sale amount over and above the Rs. 77,00,000/- payable to DDA. It is not clear if the market value was Rs. 1,45,00,000/- in the year 2012 itself and that is why, in the document Mark D-D, G. Nataraju had agreed for a payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- to be paid to him over and above the sum of Rs. 77,00,000/- payable to the DDA. Then why, in the year 2015, G. Nataraju entered into an agreement Ex. PW1/8 for the sale consideration of Rs. 85,00,000/- payable by T.R. Chawla. If T.R. Chawla was to pay Rs. 77,00,000/- to DDA and also an additional Rs. 51,00,000/- to G. Nataraju, then the most natural course of action Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 61 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 would have been for the said fact to find mention in Ex. PW1/8. It is also surprising that though, G. Nataraju claims the market value of the flat to be Rs. 1,45,00,000/-, but then signs a sale deed wherein the flat is sold for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000/-. The only alternative explanation available is that the extra payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- was to be made in "black" and that the parties had agreed to show a lesser amount in the sale deed. Even if such is the case, such agreement would be against public policy and cannot be enforced against any party.
(f) The much more probable version of events seems to be that as admittedly, G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha had no funds to pay the DDA after the lucky draw of flats in their favour, they agreed to the marginal premium offered by T.R. Chawla. They allowed T.R. Chawla to deposit the sum of Rs. 77,00,000/- approximately in consideration for getting the extra payment of around Rs. 8,00,000/- as T.R. Chawla agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/-. However, once the conveyance deed was registered in favour of G. Nataraju and perceiving that they would now have more leverage or bargaining power, having the registered conveyance deed in their favour, they tried to bargain for higher profits as they might have felt that they held all the aces. T.R. Chawla not being able to pay the higher premium got arranged another party to purchase the flat and Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 62 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 may be, he too expected the higher premium paid by Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar apart from getting reimbursed the payment made by him to DDA by availing home loan etc. This chain of events is supported by the documents on record. It also appears and it is quite probable that the property dealer Yogesh Gupta had perhaps, promised a higher premium to G. Nataraju which amount would not find mention in the agreement to sell and registered sale deed. Admittedly, G. Nataraju never made any payment to the DDA on his own nor did he have the funds to do so as admitted by him. The entire payment to DDA was admittedly made by T.R. Chawla. However, as per the case of G. Nataraju, he was paid a total sum of Rs. 36,00,000/- in the year 2013 itself by Yogesh Gupta, much before T.R. Chawla ever came into the picture. This fact is admitted by G. Nataraju in his own written statement. It appears that unwittingly, G. Nataraju has revealed the actual picture before the Court during the cross-examination. It appears that he was promised a premium of Rs. 51,00,000/- by Yogesh Gupta which amount was over and above the sum of Rs. 77,00,000/- claimed by the DDA. It appears that G. Nataraju accepted Rs. 36,00,000/- in partial sale consideration as disclosed by him only and thereafter, a buyer was brought into the picture who on paper, was to purchase the property for the sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- or thereabouts on Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 63 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 paper while G. Nataraju would enjoy the premium off the record. G. Nataraju has not produced any proof in the affirmative that he reported the income of Rs. 36,00,000/- to the Income Tax Authorities, even though, admittedly, such income would be taxed under the head of capital gains from the sale of property. Whatever the case may be, it is absolutely certain that G. Nataraju has not been able to prove that either Yogesh Gupta or T.R. Chawla or for that matter, Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar are liable to pay the sum of Rs. 24,04,115/- to him on account of any legal liability. G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha knowingly and consciously, signed the registered sale deed in favour of Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000/-. They could not prove that any of the parties were legally obligated to pay them any sum including the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as claimed by them.
(g) At this stage, it has to be considered as to what is the entitlement of T.R. Chawla. He has proved that he paid the sum of Rs. 83,03,300/- (Rs. 60,00,000/- + Rs. 17,22,000/- + Rs. 3,59,200/- + Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 72,100/-) in order to enable the execution of the conveyance deed in favour of G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha. He now claims to be entitled to the sum of Rs. 26,95,885/- which was the balance remaining as paid by Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar in terms of the registered sale deed vide which they purchased the flat Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 64 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 from G. Nataraju for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000/-. It may be remembered that a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- plus Rs. 22,14,115/- were credited to the home loan account of T.R. Chawla out of the total sum paid by Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar and the rest remains in the fixed deposit with Dena Bank over which both parties claim entitlement. The assumption behind the case of T.R. Chawla is that he is entitled to the amount paid by Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar as he had actually paid the sale consideration to DDA and therefore, he was the actual de facto seller, G. Nataraju being merely the de jure seller. I find that T.R. Chawla cannot lay claim to the profits gained by selling the property to Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar but is only entitled to the reimbursement of the sum paid by him excluding the amount already credited to the home loan account opened by him with Dena Bank. The same would amount to Rs. 20,89,185/- (Rs. 83,03,300/- - Rs. 62,14,115/-). As admittedly, G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha were the on papers sellers, they would be entitled to the remaining amount of Rs. 6,06,700/- which remain (Rs. 26,95,885/- - Rs. 20,89,185/-). No other claim which can be allowed by a Court of law has been proved by the parties to the present dispute. Moreover, G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha have not been able to prove that they can claim any amount against Yogesh Gupta, Preeti Ahlawat and Ranjeet Kumar whatsoever. Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 65 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017
(h) Apart from the above, the parties are not entitled to any other relief whatsoever in light of the pleadings preferred, evidence adduced and the documents placed on record.
Issues are decided accordingly.
Relief
43. The suits titled "Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. G. Nataraju and Anr." and G. Nataraju and Anr. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. " are therefore, partly decreed for the following relief:
"In order to do complete justice between the parties and in light of the fact that the amount of Rs. 26,95,885/- has been maintained in a fixed deposit by Dena Bank, Dwarka Branch, having term deposit receipt no. 3250572 dated 11.08.2015 in savings account no. 117510014947, this Court can mould the relief by decreeing that the said bank shall release the sum of Rs. 20,89,185/- in favour of Tilak Raj Chawla and remaining amount of Rs. 6,06,700/- in favour of G. Nataraju and S. Sujatha along with the proportionate interest accrued on the aforesaid respective amounts. No other interest shall be awarded to the parties. Parties shall also bear the costs of their own suit. Any relief not granted shall be deemed to be refused."
44. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Ahlmad of this Court shall send the copy of this judgment and order to Dena Bank, Dwarka Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla 66 Suit No. 16178/2016 Suit No. 62/2017 Branch.
45. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
DIVYANG
DIVYANG THAKUR
THAKUR Date:
2025.04.24
15:28:26
+0530
Announced in the open court (Sh. Divyang Thakur)
On 24.04.2025 DJ-03/South West
Dwarka / New Delhi
Sh. Tilak Raj Chawla and Anr. Vs. Sh. G. Nataraju and Anr. G. Nataraju and Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Chawla