Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Smt. Manohari vs M/S Aps Revanta Developers Llp Through: ... on 11 March, 2022

Author: Sanjeev Narula

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

                          $~30
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    CS(OS) 147/2022
                               SMT. MANOHARI                                 ..... Plaintiff
                                               Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior Advocate
                                                        with Mr. Naresh Gupta and Mr.
                                                        Shantanu, Advocates.
                                               versus
                                 M/S APS REVANTA DEVELOPERS LLP THROUGH: ITS
                                 PARTNERS & ORS.                      ..... Defendants
                                              Through: None.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                                         ORDER

                          %              11.03.2022
                          [VIA HYBRID MODE]

I.A. 3982/2022 (for exemption from filing original documents)

1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Plaintiff shall file better copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

3. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.

CS(OS) 147/2022

4. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

5. Issue summons. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. The written statements shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from today. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statements shall not be taken on record.

6. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file replications within 15 days of the receipt of the written statements. Along with the replications, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replications shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

7. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 20th May, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

8. List before Court for framing of issues thereafter on 22nd August, 2022.

I.A. 3981/2022 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, for interim relief)

9. Plaintiff, who is stated to be an illiterate and widowed lady, executed a Sale Deed dated 03rd October, 2018 in favour of Defendant No. 1, in respect of the property bearing 1/4th share in agricultural land comprising of 21 Bighas, 1 Biswa, bearing Khasra Nos. 19//11 (4-09), 12 (4-16), 13 (4-11), 19 (4-16), 20 (2-04), 28 (0-05), Village Ujwa, Tehsil Najafgarh, New Delhi [hereinafter, 'the suit property']. The said document was registered on 12th October, 2018 with the Sub-Registrar-IXA, New Delhi.

10. She also executed a Special Power of Attorney [hereinafter, 'SPA'] also on 03rd October 2018, in favour of Defendant No. 4 in respect of the aforenoted suit property, registered as registration No. 192, Book No. 4, Vol. No. 5, pages 118 to 120, registered on 12th October, 2018 with the Sub- Registrar-IXA, New Delhi.

11. The Plaintiff seeks cancellation of the Sale Deed and the SPA, and restraint against Defendant No. 1 to 4 from interfering in her possession of the property, on the ground that Defendants have played fraud upon her and got the Sale Deed and the SPA executed by impressing upon her that she was only executing an Agreement to Sell.

12. It is contended that she is in possession of the suit property, notwithstanding Defendants attempt to dispossess her.

13. It is further contended that, realising that a fraud has been committed upon her, she made a complaint to the office of the Tehsildar on 21st December, 2018.

14. Although, there is a long gap between the Plaintiff making a complaint to the Tehsildar and approaching this Court, however, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff emphasises that the Plaintiff being illiterate, did not have the wherewithal to take immediate recourse to legal remedies. He, however, emphasises that notwithstanding such delay, the documents are liable to be cancelled, as the same are vitiated by fraud. He explains that the suit property is an agricultural land and, execution of Sale Deed can only be pursuant to No Objection Certificate [hereinafter, 'NOC'] that is to be issued by the office of the Additional District Magistrate. He emphasises that no such permission was taken for this Sale Deed by the Plaintiff. In fact, the Sale Deed mentioned an NOC dated 12th September, 2018, which, on inspection and queries made with the office of the Additional District Magistrate, is found to be unrelated to the suit property. It has been issued to one Mr. Suraj Bhan for the purpose of execution of a Gift Deed. This, ex facie demonstrates that the Plaintiff has been defrauded and unlawfully induced into executing the Sale Deed.

15. That apart, sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed, is grossly lower than the market value of the property. To support this contention, reliance is placed upon copies of sale deeds pertaining to other properties of the same village where the suit property is situated.

16. To support the contention that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, reliance is placed on the photographs annexed with the plaint. The photographs exhibit that the land in question is vacant agricultural land with standing crop. The Plaintiff also expresses strong apprehension that the Defendants may dispossess her from the suit property and therefore, an interim injunction is necessary to protect her.

17. In view of the above, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff; and an irreparable loss would be caused, in case the Plaintiff is unlawfully dispossessed.

18. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendants are restrained from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit property.

19. List before Joint Registrar on 20th May, 2022.

20. List before Court on 22nd August, 2022.

SANJEEV NARULA, J MARCH 11, 2022 nd Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI CS(OS) 147/2022 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:12.03.2022 12:39:19