Delhi District Court
Sumit Jindal vs Smt Rajni Sharma on 14 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI.
RCA No. 25/19 (66/2019)
Sumit Jindal
S/o Sh. Lajpat Rai Jindal
R/o WZ-94, Phase I, Om Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi 110059
.....Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
Smt Rajni Sharma
W/o Sh. Yogesh Sharma
R/o Plot No. 127-A, Om Vihar,
Phase I, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi 110059
.....Respondent/Defendant
Date of Institution : 02.07.2019
Date of arguments : 08.01.2020
Date of judgment : 14.01.2020.
JUDGMENT
Argued by: Sh. Sanjay Sehgal, counsel for the Appellant.
Sh. Jayant Tiwari, counsel for the Respondent.
1. Present appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019, vide which the plaintiff/appellant's suit for eviction, possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. It was the pleaded case of plaintiff/appellant that RCA No. 25/19 Sumit Jindal Vs. Rajni Sharma Page 1 of 6 defendant/respondent was in financial crisis and she sold off her shop measuring 7.11 sq yards situated in Village Nawada, Delhi to him. Sale consideration for the amount of Rs. 4 lacs was paid and sale documents viz GPA, Agreement to sell, Affidavit, Possession letter and Receipt were executed on 04.07.2014, which were duly notarized. However, the possession was again delivered to the defendant in her capacity as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/- per month. Rent Deed dated 04.07.2014 was executed for a period of 11 months and thereafter another lease deed for a period of 11 months w.e.f 04.06.2015 was also executed. Having failed to hand over possession after termination of lease, the suit was instituted.
3. Defendant/respondent defended the suit on the ground that there was some money dispute between the parties for which a police complaint was lodged and on 28.06.2014. A settlement had been arrived at wherein the defendant signed certain blank documents and stamp papers. These documents were in the custody of plaintiff/appellant which have been misused. Signatures of the respondent/defendant on the rent deed have been denied and it is pointed out that the same do not match with each other. Maintainability of the suit in the present form was also challenged.
4. Ld. Trial court vide order dated 10.01.2019 framed the preliminary issue as regards maintainability of the suit in the present form, which is reproduced here-in-below:
Q. Whether the present suit in the present form is maintainable? OPP RCA No. 25/19 Sumit Jindal Vs. Rajni Sharma Page 2 of 6
5. By way of the impugned judgment, the preliminary issue has been decided in favour of the defendant/respondent holding that the suit was not maintainable.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, present appeal has been preferred.
7. Sh. Sanjay Sehgal, Counsel for the appellant has argued that the Ld. Trial court committed an error in holding that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. It is submitted that the possession in the capacity as owner had already been taken by the appellant by way of the possession letter dated 04.07.2014. However, the respondent was re-inducted in possession in her capacity as a tenant and therefore the suit has been rightly instituted. It is next argued by Sh. Sehgal that Section 111 (d) of the TP Act has been wrongly invoked by the Trial court.
8. Sh. Jayant Tiwari, Counsel for the respondent has contested the appeal on the ground that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The factum of possession being handed over on 04.07.2014 to the appellant is not established. The sale documents are fake. The appellant has misused the documents with blank signatures of the respondent. It is argued that the lease deeds relied upon by the appellant are fabricated as they do not bear genuine signatures of the respondent. The first lease deed and the sale documents are both bearing the same date which indicates that the possession was never handed over to the appellant.
9. During oral arguments it was further submitted by Sh.
RCA No. 25/19 Sumit Jindal Vs. Rajni Sharma Page 3 of 6Sehgal that the matter may be remanded back to the Trial court with liberty to the appellant/plaintiff to amend the plaint and seek possession on the basis of title documents.
10. However, it was pointed out by Sh. Tiwari that such a liberty has already been afforded by the Trial court, while dismissing the suit.
11. I have heard Ld. Counsels and perused the impugned order as well as trial court record.
12. The Ld. Trial court in para 10 of its judgment has observed that the Agreement to Sell was required to be registered w.e.f 24.09.2001 by virtue of Section 17 (1-A) of the Registration Act. For ready reference, para 10 of the impugned judgment is reproduced here-in-below:
"A bare perusal of the agreement to sell dated 04.072014 shows that the same has neither been duly stamped nor the same has been registered. It is significant to note that for creating an interest in terms of Section 53 A of Transfer of Property Act, an agreement to sell is required to be registered w.e.f. 24.09.2001 b y virtue of Section 17 (1-A) of Registration Act, 1908 as amended up to date. The agreement to sell relied upon by the plaintiff has allegedly been executed by defendant on 04.07.2014. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, RCA No. 25/19 Sumit Jindal Vs. Rajni Sharma Page 4 of 6 defendant has not acquired any interest in terms of Section 53 A of Transfer of Property Act, even as per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh Chand & Anr. (supra) and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) I SCC 656".
13. It is a matter of fact that the documents of sale dated 04.7.2014 relied up on by the plaintiff/appellant are not registered. I therefore, find no infirmity in the finding of the trial court that the the documents do not confer any interest in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. The GPA only enables the plaintiff/appellant to get the conveyance deed executed in its favour. Having not acquired any right, title or interest in suit property, the appellant could not have further leased out the property to respondent. As rightly pointed out by Sh. Tiwari, the Ld. Trial court in para 13 of its judgment has observed that plaintiff may exercise remedy available under the law. For ready reference the relevant portion of para 13 is also reproduced here-in-below:
"The remedy, if any, available to the plaintiff, in my considered opinion was to file the suit for specific performance and possession against defendant and the simplicitor suit for possession and injunction in the present form, as filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable".RCA No. 25/19 Sumit Jindal Vs. Rajni Sharma Page 5 of 6
14. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The same is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.
15. Trial court record be sent back along with the copy of this judgment.
16. Appeal file be consigned to record-room.
Digitally signed by NAROTTAMAnnounced in open court NAROTTAM KAUSHAL
on 14.01.2020
KAUSHAL Date: 2020.01.15
11:42:38 +0530
(Narottam Kaushal)
District & Sessions Judge:
South West District
Dwarka Courts/Delhi
RCA No. 25/19 Sumit Jindal Vs. Rajni Sharma Page 6 of 6