Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Manjeet Singh vs Sompal Singh & Ors on 1 February, 2023

                          $~33.

                          *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +       RFA 79/2023
                                  MANJEET SINGH                                          ..... Appellant
                                                     Through:       Mr. Jai Gupta, Mr. Rohit Sharma and
                                                                    Mr. Manoj Bharat, Advocates.

                                                     versus

                                  SOMPAL SINGH & ORS.                                    ..... Respondents
                                                     Through:       Ms. Jaya Goyal, Advocate for R-2 &
                                                                    3.

                                  CORAM:
                                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
                                                     ORDER

% 01.02.2023 The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. Application allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. The appellant (original plaintiff) is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03 (South District), Delhi in Suit No.328/2021 titled as 'Manjeet Singh vs. Sompal Singh and others'.

4. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed on behalf of respondent No.1 (original defendant No.1) and respondents No. 2 and 3 (original defendants No. 2 and 3) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and rejected the suit filed by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 (respondent No. 3 has since expired) are real brothers.

6. The case of the appellant is that respondents No. 2 and 3 introduced the appellant to respondent No.1 for buying the suit property of the appellant. An amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was agreed upon as sale consideration between the parties. Respondents No. 2 and 3 induced the appellant to execute the General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of respondent No.1 without receipt of the sale consideration. Hence, believing the words of respondents No. 2 and 3, the appellant executed the registered GPA dated 29.07.2009 in favour of respondent No.1 without any sale consideration amount. The appellant retained the possession of the suit property and agreed that he will continue to retain the same in till respondent No.1 pays the entire sale consideration.

7. Further, the case of the appellant is that even after repeated requests, respondent No. 1 failed to pay the sale consideration. Hence, the appellant revoked the said registered GPA on 03.11.2016 and informed respondent No.1 about the same vide legal notice dated 03.12.2016. Respondent No.1 got an F.I.R. No. 564/2017 registered against the appellant and his brothers i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3 at Police Station Neb Sarai under Sections Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:08.02.2023 17:28:38 420/120-B of Indian Penal Code. Through said F.I.R. it came to the knowledge of the appellant that respondent No.1 paid Rs. 20,00,000/- to respondents No. 2 and 3 towards the sale consideration and they had executed a receipt for the said amount. In addition, respondent No. 1 paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) to respondent No.2 through cheque towards the sale consideration. Hence, respondent No. 1 claimed that he had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- to respondents No. 2 and 3. The appellant was not aware of the said transaction. Appellant was arrested by the police in the said F.I.R. In order to secure the bail, the appellant paid Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs) to respondent No. 1 without admitting the case of the prosecution.

8. It is the case of the appellant that he was cheated by the respondents who acted in collusion with each other. Hence, the appellant filed the suit against the respondents for the recovery of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs). However, the learned Trial Court erroneously rejected the said plaint observing that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the appellant and against the defendants.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Trial Court erroneously rejected the plaint without appreciating the entire facts as narrated in the plaint.

10. This matter requires consideration.

11. Notice.

12. Ms. Jaya Goyal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

13. Notice be issued to respondent No.1 through all permissible modes, including electronic mode and dasti, returnable on 21.09.2023.

14. In the meanwhile, Trial Court Record shall be requisitioned.

GAURANG KANTH, J FEBRUARY 01, 2023 N3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:08.02.2023 17:28:38