Delhi District Court
) Sh. Satpal Yadav vs ) Sh. Ravi Yadav on 9 June, 2022
Suit No.291/2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIVYANG THAKUR
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:03:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS:NEW
DELHI
Civil Suit No. 291/2017
CNR No. DLSW01-002800-2017
In the matter of :
1) Sh. Satpal Yadav
S/o Sh. Balwant Singh
R/o H.No.20/1, Railway Station Road,
Samaipur North-West,
Delhi - 110042
........Plaintiff
Versus
1) Sh. Ravi Yadav
S/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar Yadav
R/o Village and Post Daulatpur,
New Delhi - 110043
2) Sh. Gajraj Singh Yadav
S/o Sh. Hemraj @ Sh. Bhoj Ram Yadav
R/o H.No.50, Village Libaspur,
Delhi - 110042
3) Sh. Ram Narayan (Bhagat Ji)
S/o Sh. Attar Singh Yadav
R/o Village and Post Office
Pandwala Khurd, New Delhi - 110043
4) Sh. Pradeep Dahiya
R/o 112, Village Dabri,
Post Office Palam,
New Delhi - 110045
Also At : Platcum Factory 112,
Gali no.1, Village Dabri,
Post Office Palam,
New Delhi-110045
Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 1 of 30
Suit No.291/2017
5) Sh. Ankur Parshad
S/o Sh. Pashupati Nath Parshad
R/o National Paper House,
Kadam Kuan, Patna, Bihar
......Defendants
ORDER:
1. Vide present order, I shall decide the maintainability of the present suit and whether the plaint should be rejected u/o VI R 11 CPC.
2. The facts as stated in the plaint are that :
a. The plaintiff is the owner and physical possession of the 1/30th share of total agricultural land 143 bighas (0-4) biswas, Khata/Khaton No.89 No.6//1(4-16), 7//4(2-14), 5(4-6), 6(4016), 7(6-9),15/1(0-16),11//13(4-16), 17/1(2-16), 17/2(2-0), 18(4-16), 23(4-16), 26(0-
4), 17//2/3(1-2), 3(4-16), 9/1(3-16), 31//9(4-
12), 10(4-16), 12(4-13), 13(4-5), 18(4-5), 19(4-
16), 20/1(3-18), 31//20/2(0-18), 21(4-16), 22(4-
16), 23(4-5), 27(0-7), 32//16/1(0-14), 35//5/2(3-
16), 4/2(3-0), 6(4-14), 7(4-12), 36//1(4-6), 10(4-16) situated in Revenue Estate of Village Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 2 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 Pandwala Khurd, Tehsil Kapashera, New Delhi; (2)1/45 share total agricultural land measuring 0 Bigha, 05 biswa, Khata/Khatauni No.91, bearing Khasra No.6//27(0-5), situated in the revenue estate of Village Pandwala Khurd, Tehsil Kapashera, New Delhi and (3)4/105 share total agricultural land measuring 6 Bigha, 10 Biswas, Khata/Khatoni No.90, Bearing Khasra No.32//16/2(4-2), 25/1(2-8) situated in the revenue estate of Village Pandwala Khurd, Tehsil Kapashera, New Delhi.
b. The defendants no.1 to 4 are engaged in the business of property dealing in Delhi-NCR and have known the plaintiff since last more than a decade and the above defendants no.1 to 4 approached the plaintiff in the month of June 2015 in respect of purchase of above said agricultural land and defendants no.1 to 4 in the presence of each other had made an offer to purchase the suit property against the lawful sale consideration of Rs.5,25,00,000/-. The Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 3 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 plaintiff had agreed to sell the aforesaid property to the defendant no.1 to 4 for the sale consideration of Rs.5,25,00,000/-.
c. After negotiation and discussion, the terms and conditions of agreement to sell and purchase dated 27.06.2015 were settled and defendant no.1 to 4 had paid a part payment to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and the remaining amount was agreed to be given in three months and the plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 3 had executed and signed the agreement to sell and purchase dated 27.06.2015 in the presence of each other.
d. Defendants had orally put the condition upon the plaintiff that the sale deed would be executed in the name of nominee / assignee by the defendants and the plaintiff accepted the same and agreed to execute the sale deed assignee of the defendants after receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs.5,20,00,000/-. e. The plaintiff executed the sale deed dated Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 4 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 17.05.2015 in favour of defendant no.5 Ankur Prasad in respect of 1/30 share of total agricultural land after taking the consideration to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/- from the defendants under the alleged sale deed dated 17.07.2015.
Here, it would be relevant to note the contents of para 7 of the plaint where the averment is that "plaintiff had taken the consideration to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/- from the defendants under the alleged sale deed dated 17.07.2015."
f. Defendant no.1 to 4 by adopting the same modus operandi had also got executed the sale deed dated 17.07.2015 in favour of Sh. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar and Sh. Sudhir Kumar in respect of 1/3rd share and 1/45th share respectively of total agricultural land.
g. That the plaintiff received sum of
Rs.77,44,000/- by way of RTGS and
Rs.20,00,000/- by way of cheque and
Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 5 of 30
Suit No.291/2017
remaining balance sale consideration of
Rs.2,27,36,000/- was to be given by the defendants to the plaintiff, in pursuance of which the defendant no.2 had issued 5 cheques of Rs.40,00,000/- as security.
h. That the plaintiff did not receive the further sale consideration and therefore, made a complaint to the Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar. He further kept demanding the balance sale consideration from the defendants but the same was not received.
i. The plaintiff further avers that it was only in the last week of December 2016 that on receiving summons from Hon'ble Delhi High Court that he came to know that the actual sale consideration of Rs.5,25,00,000/- was not mentioned in the sale deed, and only Rs.42,00,000/- was mentioned.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 17.07.2015 executed in respect of 1/30th share of Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 6 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 total agricultural land as already mentioned and for decree of permanent injunction with respect to the suit property.
4. The plaintiff also filed a list of documents which included the sale deed sought to be canceled dated 17.07.2015. It would be pertinent to note the contents of the sale deed placed by the plaintiff on record. The sale deed records that Rs.42,00,000/- have been received by the Vendor, i.e. the plaintiff as full and final payment towards the sale price. The sale deed further records that the Vendor hereby explicitly admits and declares that having received the aforesaid consideration in full and final payment, nothing is left due to be paid by the Vendee to the Vendor on account of sale consideration against the said land and the aforesaid consideration represents the full and final consideration for a transaction. It further records that the Vendor has conveyed title absolutely to the Vendees and that all right, title, interest of the Vendor has seized and the Vendee has stepped into the shoes of the Vendor forever. Moreover, it also records that the Vendees can mutate the revenue record in their favour.
5. In this regard, on the reading of the plaint, it would be quite clear that the main grievance of the plaintiff is that the correct sale consideration as per him was Rs.5,25,00,000/- Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 7 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 whereas sale consideration of only Rs.42,00,000/- has been reflected in the sale deed. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has admitted to receiving Rs.42,00,000/- as sale consideration at the time of execution of sale deed. This is clearly mentioned in para 7 of the plaint.
6. The law on rejection of plaint is well settled and it would be useful to refer to the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives and Others (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 366 in Civil Appeal No.9519 of 2019 decided on July 9, 2020, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"23.1. We will first briefly touch upon the law applicable for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which reads as under:
11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases -
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 8 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9:
.......
23.2. The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule 11(a) is Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 9 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi this court held that whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words : (SCC p.324, para 12) "12.....The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 10 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 cause of action."
23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
.........
23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 11 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 the threshold is made out.
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and can not be adverted to, or taken into consideration. 23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V.Sea Success I which reads as : (SCC p.562, para 139) "139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed."
23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., the Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 12 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and t read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court can not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. 23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
23.14. The power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily to to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case. Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 13 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 ......
24.3. Subsequently, in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal this Court held that law can not permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.
24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal held that is should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court."
7. Having noted the law regarding rejection of plaint, it would be relevant to consider the law regarding cancellation of sale deed and the grounds that give rise to a cause of action to get such document declared null and void and cancelled under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963. To put it in a nutshell, it is a well established law that a sale deed cannot be cancelled merely on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration. Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 14 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 Secondly, it is a well established principle of law that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to prove any terms of a contract which are contrary to the terms as reflected in the registered sale deed. In a similar fact situation, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgment titled Madhu Kapoor and Anr. Vs Neelam Jain and Ors. dated 16.12.2021 in CS(OS) 26/2020 has held as follows:
"8. Admittedly, the cause of action as narrated in the plaint centres around the challenge to a registered Sale Deed dated 30th August, 2017 executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 1 and 2. This Sale Deed unambiguously records the sale consideration of Rs.
2,85,00,000/- which stands paid by Defendants No. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiffs. Yet, the Plaintiffs seek cancellation thereof. Thus, the Court has to examine whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or not. The averments made in the plaint, as summarized in the preceding paragraphs, discern that entire premise of the plaint is based on a plea that there was an understanding between the parties which is not Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 15 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 laid down/ reduced in the registered instrument viz. Sale Deed and thus, the said document is not determinative of the 'real intent' of the parties to the sale. In other words, entire case of the Plaintiffs is in contravention to the registered document. The Sale Deed contains stipulations specifically authorizing Defendants No. 1 and 2 to get the portions specified therein, mutated in their own names in the records of the respective municipal/ water/ electricity authorities as well as other departments. In fact, the Sale Deed places obligation on Defendants No. 1 and 2 to bear the expenditures incurred on account of use and repairs of electricity/ water/ gas, etc. and maintenance of the common portions of the entire suit property. The registered Sale Deed also records that there is no subsisting agreement for sale in respect of the suit property.....
9. The above-mentioned Sale Deed here is a concluded contract, it absolutely conveys the suit property mentioned therein and belies the cause Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 16 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 of action set up in the plaint. Clause 2 and 12, among other clauses of the Sale Deed reproduced above explicitly records that the suit property has been sold, transferred, and conveyed completely. Where the law compels a document to be in writing, that alone will be determinative of the intention of the parties. Instruments/ contracts reduced in writing presume deliberation on the part of the contracting parties and are certainly to be treated with careful consideration by the courts. The oral understanding pleaded to explain the circumstances under which the Sale Deed was executed is thus, in utter variance and completely contradictory to terms recorded in the Sale Deed.
10. Plaintiffs have narrated the circumstances leading to the execution of the Sale Deed and have also used the expression of 'fraud', 'misrepresentation' and 'cheating'. This forms the basis for reliance on the exceptions to Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act to overcome the hurdle in law to maintain the suit. In the opinion of the Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 17 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 Court, such pleas are untenable and barred under Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act in the face of the registered instrument of sale, admittedly executed by the Plaintiffs in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2. The spirit and objective of Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act is to render the written contracts / agreements and other dispositions as the sole repository of the terms and conditions contained therein. The registered Sale Deed proves the terms embodied therein and thus, Section 92 of the Evidence Act comes into operation for the purpose of excluding evidence of any oral agreement(s)/ statement(s) intended to contradict, vary, amend, add, or subtract from its terms. Section 92 of the Evidence Act, inter-alia, stipulates that where the terms of an instrument or other disposition of property have been proved as per Section 91 of the Evidence Act and in case the execution and registration of the instrument of sale is not disputed, no evidence of any purported oral agreement(s)/ statement(s) shall be admitted, Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 18 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 as between the parties to such instrument, for the purpose of varying, contradicting, adding to, or subtracting from its terms. In V. Anantha Raju and Another v. T.M. Narasimhan and Others, the Apex Court, inter-alia, held as under: -
"It has been held that it would be inconvenient that matters in writing made by advice and on consideration, and which finally import the certain truth of the agreement of parties should be controlled by averment of the parties to be proved by the uncertain testimony of slippery memory. It has been held that when parties deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is conclusively presumed, between themselves and their privies, that they intended the writing to form a full and final statement of their intentions, and one which should be placed beyond the reach of future controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory."
11. Plaintiffs have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gangabai v. Chhabubai to contend that it is permissible for a party to a deed Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 19 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 to argue that the deed was never intended to be acted upon and was a sham instrument, and it would thus, be necessary to lead oral evidence to establish that the document executed was never intended to operate/ act as a binding agreement and instead, some other document(s) would be binding between the parties. No doubt Section 92 of the Evidence Act provides certain exceptions, which permit oral evidence, however, Plaintiffs' case does not fall under any of the exceptions carved out for oral evidence. The execution of the Sale Deed is admitted in the plaint. The intention of the parties is to be gathered from the aforesaid recitals of the Sale Deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record. Under Clause 1 of the Sale Deed, Plaintiffs accepted the payment, as mentioned therein as full consideration, and conveyed all rights in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2. The details of the cheques, the amounts mentioned, etc. are clearly disclosed. The receipt of some of the cheques are Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 20 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 also admitted in paragraph Nos. 3, 10 and 18 of the plaint. The amount mentioned in the Sale Deed is stated to be the 'entire sale consideration'. There is no clause shown to the Court which makes payment of any amount, over- and-above the said amount, a condition precedent for transfer of title. All these facts clearly demonstrate that the intention of the Plaintiffs was clearly to convey all the rights, title and interest in the portions of the suit property which were the subject matter of the registered Sale Deed dated 30th August, 2017 in favour of Defendants No. 1 and 2. It is inconceivable that if the Plaintiffs did not receive the entire alleged sale amount, they would execute the said Sale Deed.....
13. In the present case, the Plaintiffs argue that the said registered instrument was executed only as a 'collateral security' against the payment of the consideration qua the remaining portion of the property and Defendants No. 1 and 2 have Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 21 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 committed fraud, misrepresented, and cheated by seeking to exploit the instrument of sale, contrary to the understanding between the parties viz. the Sale Deed that was only to be in nature of a 'collateral security'. It is well-settled in law that a mere mention of "fraud" or "misrepresentation" in a pleading is insufficient. There are bald assertions to give a semblance of cause of action. A party pleading "fraud" is obliged, under Order VI Rule 4 of CPC, to provide particulars of the pleaded "fraud" - accompanied with dates and items, in its pleadings. The plaint does not make out a case of "fraud". In any event, the fraud, intimidation, illegality, etc. referred to in first proviso to Section 92 of Evidence Act relates to the execution of the instrument/ document. It is not the Plaintiffs' case that on execution of the registered instrument/ Sale Deed, they were unaware that it is a 'sale deed' that they were executing. It is also not their case that they are illiterate; or that they had not read; or could not Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 22 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 read the instrument in question. It is also not claimed that the Sale Deed was executed in an intoxicated and/or unsound state; or under duress or coercion exercised by the Defendants and/ or anyone else. In fact, the Sale Deed makes a specific statement to the contrary. Plaintiffs knew the fact that they were executing an instrument of sale. At this juncture, when Plaintiffs executed the Sale Deed in question, it is not open for them to claim that the instrument of sale is hit by "fraud", "misrepresentation" or "cheating", because, according to them - the intention or understanding between the parties was to create a 'collateral security'. The Plaintiffs are seeking to foist an obligation on Defendants No. 1 and 2 that is contrary the terms of the registered instrument viz. Sale Deed. If the intention of the parties was, as is claimed by the Plaintiffs, then that intention should have been expressed in the instrument itself. However, that is not the case. Thus, the entire cause of action pleaded is in the teeth of Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 23 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act"..........
16.......Actual payment of entire sale price at time of execution of the Sale Deed not an essential condition for completion of sale. Plaintiffs remedy in such a case would lie not for seeking the cancellation of the Sale Deed, but to sue for the balance price under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. The vendor cannot avoid the sale and seek reconveyance of title of the portions of the suit property sold under the Sale Deed. Therefore, the Plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration but certainly not for one sought in the plaint. Thus, even if the averments of the Plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could still not be a ground for cancellation of the Sale Deed".
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali 2020 7 SCC 366 has held as under:
Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 24 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 .......In Vidyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr. this Court held that the words "price paid or promised or part paid and part promised" indicates that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid, but the document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non-payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. In order to constitute a "sale", the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record.
Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 25 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 ......In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the averments of the Plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed. We find that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a).
9. In my view, the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble Delhi High Court apply to the present case in full force. Even if the plaintiff led evidence to prove his pleadings, he would not be entitled to the relief of cancellation and permanent injunction as prayed by him as the non-payment of sale consideration is no ground for cancellation of sale deed. This is assuming that the plaintiff could be allowed to prove that the sale consideration was for Rs.5,25,00,000/-.
Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 26 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 However, I also find that the plaintiff can not be allowed to lead evidence to prove that the sale consideration was for Rs.5,25,00,000/- as the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed is only Rs.42,00,000/-.
10. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act would clearly bar the plaintiff from proving any such pleading to show that Rs.2,27,36,000/- was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff or that the actual sale consideration was Rs.5,25,00,000/-. The registered sale deed which has been placed on record by the plaintiff himself and which would also be considered to be a part of the plaint, clearly records that the entire sale consideration has been received and that nothing further is due to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. In the present case, the plaintiff has not even pleaded any fraud, duress or coercion. The plaintiff's only pleading in a weak attempt to circumvent the bar of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act is to plead that the correct sale consideration was not mentioned in the sale deed. In my view, the plaintiff can not prove any such pleading in light of the express recitals contained in the sale deed dated 17.07.2015. In any case, such vague allegations do not satisfy the requirement as contained in Order VI R 4 CPC with respect to the pleadings of Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 27 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 fraud and misrepresentation.
11. Order VI R 4 CPC reads as under :
"4. Particulars to be given where necessary - In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading."
12. In fact, it is pertinent to note that nowhere in the entire plaint has the plaintiff pleaded fraud, duress or coercion. There are only vague allegations of collusion and conspiracy which do not satisfy the requirements of Order VI R 4 of the CPC. For the plaintiff to show that his case comes under exception 1 of Section 92, the allegations of fraud needed to be specific in nature. The plaint lacks any such allegations. Moreover, the sale itself is valid on the face of it as the plaintiff himself has admitted to receiving the sale consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- at the time of execution of sale deed. Moreover, on a reading of the plaint as a whole, it would be clear that the Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 28 of 30 Suit No.291/2017 plaintiff fully intended to sell the property. It is not even his case that the sale was a sham transaction or that no actual sale consideration was received by him. The execution of the sale deed is clearly admitted by the plaintiff.
13. In the light of such admitted facts, it would be a subversion of the provisions of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act if the plaintiff was allowed to prove the existence of an unpaid sale consideration in direct contravention of the sale consideration as clearly laid out in the sale deed dated 17.07.2015.
14. I find that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action with regard to the prayers as prayed for in the present suit. Putting the parties to trial would be an abuse of the process of the court.
15. The present suit is without any merit, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, the present plaint is now rejected under the provisions of Order VII R 11 of the CPC. Even though no formal application in this regard was moved by the defendants, it is well settled that the court can not allow such vexatious claims to linger on in the court.
Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 29 of 30 Suit No.291/2017
16. Therefore, the plaint stands rejected.
17. Any pending applications are disposed off as infructuous.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally signed compliance. DIVYANG by DIVYANG THAKUR Date: THAKUR 2022.06.09 16:25:07 +0530 Announced in the open court (Divyang Thakur) On 09.06.2022 ADJ-03/South West Dwarka / New Delhi 09.06.2022 Satpal Yadav vs Ravi Yadav & Ors. Page No. 30 of 30