Delhi High Court - Orders
Smt. Sukrita Bajaj vs Sh. Sundeep@Sandeep Sehgal on 15 March, 2021
Author: Jayant Nath
Bench: Jayant Nath
$~OS-4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ EX.P. 57/2018 & E.A. 1032/2019
SMT. SUKRITA BAJAJ ..... Decree Holder
Through Ms.Sonali Malhotra and Ms.Ritika
Sharma, Advs. for Decree Holder.
versus
SH. SUNDEEP@SANDEEP SEHGAL ..... Judgement Debtor
Through Mr.Siddharth Gupta, Adv. for
Judgement Debtor.
Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Gaurav Goyal, Ms.Parul Sharma
and Mr.Aditya Awasthi, Advs. for
Objectors.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
% 15.03.2021 E.A. 1032/2019
1. This application is filed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC against the attachment of the first and second floor of the property bearing No. S-87, Greater Kailash- II, New Delhi by order dated 16.07.2018.
2. It is the case of the objectors, namely, Smt.Punam Goyal and Shri Munish Goyal that they are the joint owners and in possession of the first and second floor of the property bearing No. S-87, Greater Kailash- II, New Delhi with four-car parking space, two servant quarters with common toilet/bathroom, stilt area in/of the said property along with 45% undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the land underneath the entire said property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 17.09.2013 executed by late Shri Om Prakash Sehgal in favour of the objectors. It is stated that late Shri Om Prakash Sehgal was the sole and exclusive owner of the entire property bearing No. S-87, Greater Kailash- II, New Delhi and also the father of the judgment debtor. Hence the present objections.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the decree holder and learned senior counsel for the objectors.
4. Learned senior counsel for the objectors has pointed out that in terms of the registered sale deed dated 17.09.2013for a valuable consideration of Rs.3.90 crore, the objectors have purchased the said property bonafidely. Hence, it is stated that judgment debtor, the son of Mr.Om Prakash Sehgal has no right, title and interest in the said property.
5. Learned counsel for the decree holder has vehemently opposed the present application stating that this is a conspiracy between the objectors and the judgment debtor. She has stressed that the judgment debtor is a fraudulent person who is prone to carrying out illegal acts.
6. I may note that a copy of the registered sale deed dated 17.09.2013 for the first and second floor has been placed on record. The sale deed has been executed by late Shri Om Prakash Sehgal, the father of the judgment debtor in favour of the objectors. The recital to the sale deed states that Shri Om Prakash Sehgal and his wife Smt.Usha Sehgal had purchased the said plot from M/s DLF United Ltd. via sale deed dated 19.02.1973. Smt. Usha Sehgal during her life time had made a Will dated 30.12.2005 bequeathing her 50 % undivided share in the entire property in favour of her husband Shri Om Prakash Sehgal exclusively. Consequently, on the death of his wife Shri Om Prakash Sehgal acquired full rights in the property.
7. This court on 02.11.2020 had noted that notice had been issued to Ms.Sungeeta Sehgal, sister of the judgment debtor, Mr.Sundeep @ Sandeep Sehgal, one of the legal heirs of late Shri Om Prakash Sehgal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for Ms.Sungeeta Sehgal stated that she claims only half share in the leftover suit property pursuant to the collaboration agreement with the objector by late father Shri Om Prakash Sehgal. The first and second floor of the property was sold to the builder / objector through the collaboration agreement. This court has also noted that the suit is pending between Ms.Sungeeta Sehgal and the judgment debtor and the same has no concern whatsoever with the first and second floor of the newly built suit property. She did not deny that her father had entered into a collaboration agreement. Ms.Sungeeta Sehgal was directed to file an affidavit.
9. Ms. Sungeeta Sehgal has now filed her affidavit. Strong allegations in the said affidavit have been raised against the brother-judgment debtor for manipulation, etc. However, para 19 and 25 of the affidavit read as follows:-
"19.That FIRST FLOOR & SECOND FLOOR have already allegedly been sold out to the builder by the Judgment Debtor as per registered sale deed dated 17.09.2013 for Rs.3.90 crores and remaining Basement, Ground Floor, Third Floor and terrace is still exist inherit property of late Sh. O. P. Sehgal.
xxx
25.That the Deponent respectfully says that the Deponent has no objection if this hon'ble court allows to the Decree Holder to dispoe of the ½ share out of the remaining property of late Sh. O. P. Sehgal which is legally owned by the Judgment Debtor subject to the safe custody of the ½ (one floor with terrace or Basement) share owned by the Deponent. It is further respectfully prayed that it will be appreciated if a constructive possession of ½ share of the remaining property is given to the Deponent or the said share is of the Deponent is kept in the safe custody of this hon'ble court till the finalization of the pending adjudication of the matter of the Deponent for Partition, Declaration and permanent injunction in the interest of justice."
10. It is manifest from the above that the property was sold by late Shri Om Prakash Sehgal way back in 2013. The legal heirs of late Shri O. P. Sehgal accept that the first and second floor has been duly sold to the objectors pursuant to builder agreement. Disputes are pending between the legal heirs of late Shri Om Prakash Sehgal i.e. Smt. Sungeeta Sehgal and the judgment debtor but it does not pertain to the property, namely, the first and second floor of the suit property.
11. As there is no challenge to the sale deed dated 17.09.2013, in my opinion, there is merit in the present objection. The plea of learned counsel for the decree holder cannot be accepted as the property on which the judgment debtor has no title cannot be a subject matter of an attachment. Admittedly, the basement, ground and third floor are available in which as per Ms. Sungeeta Sehegal, the judgment debtor has 50 per cent share.
12. I accordingly allow this application. Warrants of attachment issued on 16.07.2018 stands withdrawn with regard to the first and second floor of the property bearing S-87, Greater Kailash- II, New Delhi.
13. The application stands disposed of.
EX.P. 57/2018Let the decree holder file proclaimation of sale for the basement, ground and third floor of the suit property.
List before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings on 26.04.2021 regarding the sale of the property in question.
JAYANT NATH, J MARCH 15, 2021/st