Delhi District Court
C.S No. 87/18 vs Komal And Ors on 29 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF DR. HARDEEP KAUR, ADJ02,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
C.S No. 87/18
Capital Land Builders Pvt Ltd.
Vs Komal and Ors.
29.01.2018
Fresh suit received by way of assignment. It be
checked and registered.
Present: Sh. G. Narayan, counsel for plaintiff.
1.Plaintiff has filed the present suit for Declaration, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against the defendants with the following prayers:
(a) Pass a decree of declaration declaring illegal sale deed dated 08.12.2011 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1, registered with Sub Registrar IV Delhi on 08.12.2011, as void and not binding on the plaintiff.
(b) Pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant no. 4 to demolish the illegal structure of the suit property.
(c) Pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant no. 4 to cancel trade license if any issued in favour of defendant no. 1 to carry out Page 1 of 7 illegal business of trading of marbles and stones.
(d) Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction directing the Defendant no. 1 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property.
(e) Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction directing the Defendants and their agent, successors, assigns from any manner, directly or indirectly, interfering with or obstructing the plaintiff from his peaceful use and enjoyment, possession and ownership of the suit property covered under illegal sale deed.
(f) Pass a decree of Prohibitory Injunction directing the Defendant no. 3 restraining from registering any new transfer of property document qua the suit property except sought by the plaintiff.
(g) Pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant no. 1 to deposit in the Court the sale deeds dated 08.12.2011 and direct the destruction thereof.
2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff company is engaged in the business of Colonization and has on Khasra no. 853, 854, 855, 861, 862, 863, 1017 / 867, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 1132 / 892 situated in th area of village Gokalpur, Shahdara has developed a residential colony namely Kailash Nagar Page 2 of 7 Colony at Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi jointly with its sister concern M/s Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. Further the plaintiff and its sister concern fragmented the entire area that is 81 Bighas and 14 Biswas into 157 plots out of which 119 plots are owned by the plaintiff Company and remaining 38 plots are owned by the M/s Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. But the physical demarccation of the individual were not carried out. A copy of sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff compnay by the vendor M/s G.S. Kashyap & Sons (HUF) is annexed as Annexure P/4.
It is stated in the plaint that in the month of August 2014 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant no. 2 has executed a Sale Deed of Property bearing no. A9 area measuring 275 sq. yds. (229.92 Sq. Mtr.) belonging to the plaintiff company in favour of defendant no. 1 in connivance with the defendant no. 3 vide Registration no. 5316 in Addl. Book no. I, Vol. no. 1113 on page 38 to 45 on 08.12.2011.
It is further stated that the Sale Deed dated 08.12.2011 executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 is a forged and fabricated document. Aggrieved by the fraudulent act of Defendant no.2, plaintiff made a formal complaint to Page 3 of 7 the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar on 22.08.2014.
Plaintiff stated in para 21 of the plaint that cause of action first arose on 08.12.2011 when the defendant no. 1 illegally and fraudulently executed and got registered the sale deed regarding the suit property. Cause of action further arose on 03.08.2014 when the plaintiff came to know about the illegal execution of sale deed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1. Cause of action further arose on 26.08.2014 when the plaintiff made complaint to SHO PS Jyoti Nagar, Delhi and further stated that cause of action further arose on 01.08.2017 when the physical demarcation in Kailash Nagar Colony was carried out and cause of action further arose on 22.08.2017 when the plaintiff made a complaint to D5 and cause of action further arose on 17.10.2017 when the plaintiff made formal complaint to defendant no. 4 regarding carrying out illegal business of marbles and stones by defendant no. 1.
3. Heard. Case filed perused.
4. Perusal of the record shows that suit of plaintiff is barred by Limitation as plaintiff has filed the present suit for Declaration, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction against the defendants. As the plaintiff prayed to declare sale deed dated 08.12.2011 Page 4 of 7 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 as void and not binding on the plaintiff and in para 6 of the plaint it is stated that in the month of August 2014, plaintiff came to know that the defendant no. 2 has executed a Sale Deed of Property bearing no. A9 area measuring 275 sq. yds. (229.92 Sq. Mtr.) belonging to the plaintiff company in favour of defendant no. 1 in connivance with the defendant no. 3.
The relevant provision of Section 3 of Limitation Act 1963 is as under: "every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set upon as a defence." It is thus incumbent upon the Court to satisfy itself that the suit is not barred by limitation, regardless of whether such a plea has been raised by the parties.
In the present suit, the period of limitation would be computed under Article 56 of the Limitation Act 1963 which is laid out below for the facility of reference: Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run Page 5 of 7 Article 56. To Three years When the issue or declare the forgery registration of an instrument becomes known to issued or registered the plaintiff In Union of India vs. British India Corporation Ltd (2003) 9 SCC 505, it has been opined that "the question of limitation is a mandate to the forum and irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the forum must consider and apply it, if there is no dispute on facts"
As stated in the plaint that sale deed was executed on 08.12.2011 and plaintiff came to know in the month of August 2014 that the defendant no. 2 has executed a Sale Deed of suit Property bearing no. A9 area measuring 275 sq. yds. (229.92 Sq. Mtr.) belonging to the plaintiff company in favour of defendant no. 1 in connivance with the defendant no. 3, .
In view of Article 56, the period of limitation is three years from the date of knowledge of registration to the plaintiff. In the present matter plaintiff came to know about the execution of registered sale deed in the month August 2014 and plaintiff filed the present suit on 29.01.2018, after the expiry of period of three years.
In view of above discussions, the suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence, plaint of plaintiff is hereby rejected u/O 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC.Page 6 of 7
5. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared.
6. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open court (Dr. Hardeep Kaur) on 29.01.2018 ) ADJ02(SHD)/KKD/Delhi Digitally signed by HARDEEP HARDEEP KAUR KAUR Date:
2018.01.30 16:06:20 +0530 Page 7 of 7