Delhi District Court
Harish Kumar vs . Nirmala & Anr. on 31 October, 2022
Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Sh. Dinesh Kumar
In the matter of
CS DJ No. 6000/16
Filing No. 31060/2014
CNR No. DLST010004182014
Sh. Harish Kumar
S/o Sh. Bachchu Singh,
R/o H.No. 6/1, Harijan Colony,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
................Plaintiff
Versus
1. Ms. Nirmala
D/o. Sh. Shivaji
R/o. K2/159, Harijan Colony,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
2. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
S/o. Sh. Budh Singh
R/o. Village Maidangarhi,
Prajapath Mohalla,
New, Delhi110068
.............Defendants
Date of Institution : 17.11.2014
Date of reserving judgment : 30.09.2022
Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2022
Decision : Suit Dismissed
CS DJ No.6000/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014
Page 1 of 28
Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022
Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.8,00,000/ (RS. EIGHT
LACS ONLY) PLUS INTEREST UPTO DATE ACCRUED
THEREUPON
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall disposes of the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/. The brief facts of the case, as per plaint, are as under: 1.1. The plaintiff had purchased the house comprising two rooms built up on a plot of 85 square yards bearing No. 355, in Khasra No. 569, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') for a consideration of Rs.8,00,000/ from the defendant No.1.
1.2. The defendant No. 1 got her title to property through defendant No.2.
1.3. The defendant No.1 represented that the house was free from all kinds of encumbrances and her title to the property was clear and had purchased the same in the year 2008. The plaintiff trusted her words and paid her Rs.8,00,000/ in installments as given in the receipt filed with the suit.
1.4. The defendant No. 1 had sold the suit property to the plaintiff which was built upon the forest land CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 2 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
which belonged to the Delhi Government. The plaintiff had no idea or inkling that the construction was done on encroached Government property which could be demolished anytime.
1.5. The documents e.g. General Power of Attorney, affidavit, Will and receipt were executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff on 16.06.2013.
1.6. The house was demolished by the Municipal Corporation of the area in the month of September 2014, without notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, had pooled all his resources and raised money at very high rate of interest to buy the house. Therefore, he suffered monetarily only because the vital facts of ownership were concealed by the defendant no. 1 at the time of sale. The defendant no. 1 was confronted by the plaintiff who told that she knew about the true facts all the time. She also promised to refund the money to the plaintiff in installments with interest. 1.7. The defendant no. 1 did not pay the amount of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff served a legal notice on 01.10.2014 to the defendant no. 1 asking her to CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 3 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
make the payment. The notice could not be served. The defendant no. 1 deliberately avoided the service. Hence, the present suit had been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of recovery of Rs.8,00,000/ from the defendant with the following prayer.
"a) pass a decree for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,00,000 / + interest accrued thereupon in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
"b) allow the cost of the suit, court fee and legal fees in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
"c) pass any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the interest of justice."
2. The summons were issued to the defendants. The defendant No.2 did not appear despite service. He has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 18.11.2017.
3. Defendant no. 1 has appeared. She has filed her written statement. She has denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff. She has contested the present suit on the following grounds: CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 4 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
3.1. The present suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Court. There is no agreement as regard to refund of payment for purchase of alleged property and as such there is no contract for reconveyance or refund of money.
3.2. The plaintiff cannot take the advantage of his own wrongs. The plaintiff is a service man and presumably a literate man. He had the opportunity to search the title of the property with due diligence. 3.3. The defendant no. 1 has got the possessory title of the suit property for long. However, the plaintiff, by playing a fraud, got the possession of the suit property. At no point of time, the defendant no. 1 ever approached or contacted the plaintiff to sell the suit property.
3.4. The plaintiff is a land grabber and he also advanced loans to gullible and vulnerable illiterate persons. By misusing his position and taking advantage of illiteracy of the victims, he grabs their CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 5 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
land. The present case is the outcome of the ulterior and malafide intention of the plaintiff. 3.5. The defendant is a housemaid earning her livelihood by cleaning and washing the pots and clothes in residential areas and is utterly poor. She fell ill in February 2013 and approached the plaintiff for advancing Rs.5,000/ for her treatment, since the plaintiff was doing the business of money lending to vegetables vendors and other needy persons of the area. The plaintiff told the defendant to put her signature on the foot of some blank papers and the defendant being in need put her signatures on some of the papers after which the plaintiff advanced her Rs. 5,000/.
3.6. The plaintiff approached the defendant no.1 in the month of June 2013 to return Rs.5,000/. The defendant sought some time for returning the said amount to him. At this pretext, the plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant on some blank papers in order to extend the time for repayment of loan amount of Rs.5,000/.
CS DJ No.6000/2016CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 6 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
3.7. The defendant never sold the property and executed any document in favour of the plaintiff. In the month of July 2013 the plaintiff entered the suit property when the defendant was out of her house. He did not let her enter in her own house by saying that either she pay Rs.5,00,000/ instantly otherwise he would not let her in her house. The defendant was illegally deprived from her own house and she is compelled to take shelter in the house of her daughter. The entire alleged documents are forged, fabricated and self made by the plaintiff himself in order to grab the property of the defendant. 3.8. The plaintiff has no right to file the present suit. It is a false suit. False allegations have been made against the defendant. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed.
4. The plaintiff filed the rejoinder/replication to the written statement in which he has denied the allegations made by the defendant and reiterated the facts stated by him in the plaint.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 12.03.2015, the following issues were framed.
CS DJ No.6000/2016CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 7 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
1) Whether the suit property No. 355 in Khasra No. 569 Maidan Garhi ever belonged to defendant ? OPD
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount as prayed for?OPP
3) Relief.
6. The plaintiff was asked to lead the evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1. He reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff also filed an additional affidavit in evidence, which is Ex.PW1/1A. He has relied upon the following documents :
i) The copies of GPA & others documents executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 are Ex. PW1/A (Colly).
ii) The copies of general power of attorney, affidavit, will and receipt along with receipt for earnest money executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff are Ex. PW1/B (colly).
iii) Copy of Legal Notice dated 01.10.2014 as Ex. PW1/C.
iv) Copy of police complaint as Mark A1.
CS DJ No.6000/2016CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 8 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
v) Advance receipt cum agreement to sell executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 is Ex.PW1/F.
7. The witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant No.1. The plaintiff did not examine any other witness. Therefore, PE was closed at his statement vide order dated 15.03.2019.
8. The defendant no. 1 examined herself as DW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. She reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement.
9. The DW1 was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. The defendant did not examine any other witness. Therefore, the DE was closed vide order dated 24.11.2021 and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
10. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff would argue that the defendant No.1 had got her title to property through defendant no. 2. He is also jointly responsible for passing on a defective title to defendant no. 1 and guilty of selling government land. The plaintiff is a serviceman whereas defendant Ms. Nirmala claimed to be the owner and in CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 9 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
possession of the suit property which was sold to the plaintiff by her by concealing about its ownership. At the time of selling of the house, the defendant represented that the house was free from all kinds of encumbrances and her title to the property was clear. The plaintiff paid Rs.8,00,000/ in installments to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 did not disclose deliberately that the suit property was built upon the forest land which belonged to the Delhi Government and the construction was done on encroached Government property which could be demolished anytime. The house was demolished in September 2014 by Municipal Corporation without giving any notice to the plaintiff as the same was constructed on Government land.
11. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff would further argue that the plaintiff had used all his resources and took money on high interest rate to buy the house. After being confronted by the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 had said that she was aware about the true facts of the property. Still she sold the suit property to the plaintiff. She had also promised that she would refund the money to the plaintiff in installments with interest. However, she did not return CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 10 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
the money. Therefore, the plaintiff served her with a legal notice on 01.10.2014 but it was received back unserved. She deliberately avoided the notice of the plaintiff.
12. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff would further argue that it is evident from the documents executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff that the vital information regarding the ownership of house has not been disclosed by the defendant. Thus she has played a fraud upon the plaintiff. Therefore, she is liable to return the money to the plaintiff. After having failed to recover his money, the plaintiff lodged a complaint at PS Mehrauli on 16.09.2014 and on 01.10.2014. The said complaint was not registered by the police after which he is filing a complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned MM, Saket Court, Delhi. Therefore, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed and the plaintiff may be awarded the suit amount with interest. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment titled R.F.A No. 828/2015 in Sushila Giri Vs. Nitish Kaushik decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to pray for interest.
13. Ld. Counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, would argue that the suit of the plaintiff is not CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 11 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
maintainable. The plaintiff was well aware that the land which was allegedly purchased by him was in an illegal colony and built on the Government land. There was no fraud or misrepresentation made to the plaintiff about the nature of land on which the suit property was situated. The plaintiff in his cross examination dated 01.09.2015 had admitted that the house of the defendant was in a residential colony (unauthorized). The defendant no. 1 only had the title by way of possession. The plaintiff also knew about the sale and purchase of property in unauthorized colony which is also clear from his statement given under oath in his cross examination dated 26.11.2018 wherein he has admitted that he is staying in an unauthorized colony and that he knows how the properties are sold and purchased in unauthorized colony. He has also admitted that before purchasing any property it is mandatory to verify about the status, ownership and any other relevant record. He however did not make inquiry from the Land Revenue Department and other civil authorities.
14. It is further argued on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was aware that nature of land in unauthorized CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 12 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
colonies is fraught with encumbrances and any authority can seize the land at any time under the law. So, there was no fraud / misrepresentation played upon the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff knew that the defendant no. 1 did not have the perfect title when the defendant no. 1 bought the suit property from the defendant no. 2. The plaintiff admitted this fact in paragraph 2 of the plaint. There was no sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 and no registered sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff. The documents i.e. GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell, etc. are stated to be executed in favour of the plaintiff. Such documents are executed when the land sought to be sold cannot be legally sold by way of sale deed as the land happens to be in an unauthorized colony. Therefore, the plaintiff's contention that the defendant played fraud upon him is without any substance. Further the plaintiff miserably failed to prove that he had paid Rs. 8,00,000/ as a sale consideration to the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff in his cross examination dated 01.09.2015 has made the statement, "my bank balance has gone up to the maximum level of Rs. 2.5 to Rs. 3 lakhs. I usually save Rs. 5,000 / to Rs. 7,000 / per month.. I normally keep Rs.
CS DJ No.6000/2016CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 13 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
4,000 / to Rs. 5,000 / with me in cash at my home. I did not withdraw any money from bank for the alleged purchase of property from the defendant." Hence, the plaintiff did not have sufficient funds with him at any point of time to make payment to the defendant No.1 as claimed by him.
15. It is further argued on behalf of the defendant that the rule of caveat emptor applied to the purported sale. The plaintiff should have satisfied himself about the nature of land on which the suit property was situated and he also knew that the suit property was in an illegal colony and the title of the suit land was imperfect. Hence, it is prayed that the suit may be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment "SLP (C) No. 13917/2019 titled as Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, decided on 11.10.2011."
16. Written arguments have also been filed by the parties. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the written submissions. My issuewise findings are as under.
CS DJ No.6000/2016CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 14 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
17. Issue No. 1 and 2 Issues no. 1 and 2 are taken together as they require common discussion. The issues read as under: "Issue no.1: Whether the suit property No. 355 in Khasra No. 569 Maidan Garhi ever belonged to defendant ? OPD.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount as prayed for?OPP
18. The claim of the plaintiff in the plaint is that he had purchased the suit property from the defendant No.1 for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/. The defendant No.1 has denied selling of the suit property to the plaintiff. In her written statement and in the affidavit of evidence Ex.DW1/A, the defendant No.1 has claimed that she had approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.5,000/ in February, 2013. The plaintiff had obtained her signatures on some blank papers. Again in the month of June, 2013 when the defendant No.1 could not repay the amount within time as agreed, the plaintiff had obtained her signatures on some other blank papers under the pretext of extending the time for the repayment of the loan amount. It is the defence of the defendant that the defendant had not executed any GPA, Agreement to Sell, CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 15 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
Will etc. in favour of the plaintiff. Rather the plaintiff had misused those blank documents to create the above mentioned documents to show that he had purchased the suit property from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has denied these allegations. After going through the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that there are no merits in the said defence of the defendant No.1 for the following reasons.
19. The defendant No.1 has claimed that she had signed blank papers which have been misused by the plaintiff. However, perusal of the documents Ex.PW1/F (Colly) would show that the signatures of the defendant are in such a manner and at such place on those documents that signatures cannot be taken on blank papers in such manner. On third page of the advance receipt cum agreement to sell of Ex.PW1/F (Colly), the signature of defendant No.1 are immediately above the words"FIRST PARTY". Similarly, on the receipt the signatures of the defendant No.1 are on a revenue receipt just above the words "Recipient Ms. Nirmala D/o Shri Shivaji.....". Similarly on agreement to sell Ex.PW1/B (Colly), the signatures of the defendant No.1 are just CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 16 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
above the word "first party" on the last page of the agreement. On the affidavit which is part of Ex.PW1/B (colly) the signatures of the defendant No.1 are at two places on last page just above the words "deponent". Similar is the position of her signatures on the Possession Letter, Will and Receipt, which are part of Ex.PW1/B (Colly). The defendant No.1 has not denied her signatures on these documents. It appears impossible to type those documents on blank papers after obtaining the signatures of the defendant on blank papers. Therefore, the defence of the defendant that her signatures were obtained on blank papers appears to be false.
20. The defendant has not provided any explanation as to how the documents executed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar in favour of the defendant No.1 were in possession of the plaintiff when she had not handed over those documents to the plaintiff. The only claim of the defendant No.1 is that she has signed on blank papers. She did not mention that the plaintiff had also asked to provide the documents executed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar in her favour. There is only one plausible explanation to the said fact that the defendant No.1 had executed those documents in favour CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 17 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
of the plaintiff and handed over the previous chain of documents in her favour to the plaintiff.
21. Further, the defendant No.1, despite coming to know about the documents in favour of the plaintiff, has not filed any counter claim or a separate suit seeking cancellation of those documents. The defendant No.1 in her written statement has stated that the plaintiff had trespassed in the suit property in July, 2013 and did not allow her to enter in the suit property without making payment of Rs.5,00,000/ however the defendant No.1 did not make any complaint to any legal authority despite the fact that the plaintiff had allegedly tress passed in her house. There is no explanation provided by the defendant No.1 for not taking any legal remedy against the plaintiff to obtain the possession of the suit property from the plaintiff after he had tress passed in the suit property.
22. In the light of the discussion hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the defendant No.1 has failed to prove, on the preponderance of probability that she had signed on blank papers. The plaintiff has proved on the preponderance of probabilities that the defendant No.1 CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 18 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
had executed the document Ex.PW1/B (Colly) and Ex.PW1/F (Colly) in favour of the plaintiff voluntarily.
23. Once it is shown that the defendant No.1 had executed the documents Ex.PW1/B (Colly) and Ex.PW1/F (Colly), the question to be decided by the Court is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.8,00,000/ from the defendant No.1 as claimed by him.
24. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 had sold the suit property to him without disclosing that it had been constructed on a Government land.
25. Perusal of the record would show that there is no registered sale deed shown to be executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendant No.1 had executed a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will in his favour to sell the suit property. Admittedly the suit property is situated in an unauthorized colony. The plaintiff has admitted that he is aware as to how the properties are sold in unauthorized colonies in Delhi. The plaintiff himself is a building material supplier. Therefore, he appears to be well aware regarding the unauthorized CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 19 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
colonies in Delhi. He has also admitted that he himself has been residing in an unauthorized colony. He has also admitted in his cross examination that before purchasing any property it is mandatory to verify about the status, ownership and other relevant record related to the property.
26. In the present case, issue No.1 has been framed by Ld. Predecessor to the effect whether the suit property ever belonged to defendant. The material on record is sufficient to show that the defendant No.1 was having possession of the suit property at one point of time. However, she did not have any ownership right in the suit property. This fact is clear from the records as there is no registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1. From the testimony of the plaintiff it also becomes clear that he was also aware that the defendant No.1 did not have any ownership right in the suit property. She had only possessory rights, if any, in the suit property, as she was residing in the suit property. It was the duty of the plaintiff to verify the chain of the ownership of the suit property before purchasing the suit property from the defendant No.1. However, there is no chain of ownership of the suit CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 20 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
property originating from its original owner. Thus the plaintiff was well aware, at the time of purchasing the suit property, that the defendant No.1 did not have a perfect title to the suit property. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the defendant No.1 had played any fraud upon the plaintiff by selling the suit property to him. A buyer who purchases any property in an unauthorized or illegal colony buys such property at his/her risk. The plaintiff was well aware of the said risk at the time of making payment to the defendant No.1.
27. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware), is clearly attracted in the present case. It has nowhere been pleaded by the plaintiff nor it was argued before this Court that before entering into an agreement to sell with the defendant no.1, the plaintiff had made any efforts to enquire from the office of the sub registrar of properties in Delhi about the status of the suit property, whether it was free from all incumbrances and whether the defendant no. 1 was legally authorized to sell the same. Had the plaintiff been vigilant enough, as he was expected to be, he would have saved himself from the disadvantageous situation as pleaded by him. The CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 21 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
principle of caveat emptor is a property law principle which puts the buyer at caution.
28. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs (preventive) Vs Aafloat Textiles India Private Limited : (2009) II Supreme Court Cases 18 has discussed the law relating to the principle. It has held as under:
"19. It was for the buyer to establish that he had no knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of the SIL in question.
"20. The maxim caveat emptor is clearly applicable to a case of this nature. As per Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn. 2005 at page 721: Caveat emptor means "Let the purchaser beware." It is one of the settled maxims, applying to a purchaser who is bound by actual as well as constructive knowledge of any defect in the thing purchased, which is obvious, or which might have been known by proper diligence.
"21. "Caveat emptor does not mean either in law or in Latin that the buyer must take chances. It means that the buyer must take care." (See Wallis v. Russell (1902) 21 R 585, 615).
"22. "Caveat emptor is the ordinary rule in contract.
A vendor is under no duty to communicate the existence even of latent defects in his wares unless by act or implication he represents such defects not to exist." (See William R. Anson, Principles of the Law of Contract 245 (Arthur L. Corbin Ed.3d. Am.
CS DJ No.6000/2016CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 22 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
ed.1919) Applying the maxim, it was held that it is the bounden duty of the purchaser to make all such necessary enquiries and to ascertain all the facts relating to the property to be purchased prior to committing in any manner.
"23. Caveat emptor, qui ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit. A maxim meaning "Let a purchaser beware; who ought not to be ignorant that he is purchasing the rights of another. Hob. 99; Broom; Co., Litl. 102 a: 3 Taunt. 439. "24. As the maxim applies, with certain specific restrictions, not only to the quality of, but also to the title to, land which is sold, the purchaser is generally bound to view the land and to enquire after and inspect the title deeds; at his peril if he does not."
29. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M S T C Limited vs M/S Jain Traders & Ors O.M.P. 108/2008 & I.A. No. 11533/2011, decided on 8 August, 2011 has also discussed the law relating to the principle of Caveat Emptor. Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under:
"27. "Caveat Emptor qui ignorare debuit quod jus alienum emit" means "let the purchaser beware who ought not to be ignorant that he is purchasing the rights of another." The purchaser is generally bound to view the land and to enquire after and inspect the title deeds; at his peril if he does not. It is one of the settled maxims, applying to a purchaser who is bound by actual as well as constructive knowledge of CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 23 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
any defect in the thing purchased, which is obvious, or which might have been known by proper diligence. Caveat emptor does not mean either in law, or in Latin, that the buyer must take chances. It means that the buyer must take care." "Caveat emptor" is the ordinary rule in contract. A vendor is under no duty to communicate the existence, even of latent defects in his wares unless by act or implication he represents such defects not to exist." [See William R. Anson, Principles of the Law of Contract 245 (Arthur L. Corbin Ed.3d. Am. ed.1919)]. Upon a sale of goods the general rule with regard to the nature or quality of goods is caveat emptor, so that in the absence of fraud, the buyer has no remedy against the seller for any defect in the goods not covered by some condition or warranty, expressed or implied. It is beyond all doubt that, by the general rules of law there is no warranty of quality arising from the bare contract of sale of goods, and that where there has been no fraud, a buyer who has not obtained an express warranty, takes all risk of defect in the goods, unless there are circumstances beyond the mere fact of sale from which a warranty may be implied. No one ought in ignorance to buy that which is the right of another. The buyer according to the maxim has to be cautious, as the risk is his and not that of the seller. (See Commr. of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Aafloat Textiles (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (2009) 11 SCC 18)." (Emphasis Supplied)
30. Similarly, Hon'ble PunjabHaryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 22898 of 2012(O&M) titled as CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 24 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
Pawittar Singh Walia vs Union Territory, decided on 21 November, 2012, while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Aaflot Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supra), has also discussed in detail, the applicability of the principle of caveat emptor to the immovable property. It has held as under :
"In view of the above, this Court feels no hesitation to hold that petitioner himself has violated the rule of caveat emptor and had acted in a completely negligent manner. The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) versus Aafloat Textiles India Private Limited and Others, (2009) 11 SCC 18. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which aptly apply in the present case, read as under: "It was for the buyer to establish that he had no knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of the SIL in question. The maxim caveat emptor is clearly applicable to a case of this nature. As per Advanced Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn.2005 at page 721:Caveat emptor means "let the purchaser beware." It is one of the settled maxims, applying to a purchaser who is bound by actual as well as constructive knowledge of any defect in the thing purchased, which is obvious, or which might have been known by proper CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 25 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
diligence. "Caveat emptor does not mean either in law or in Latin that the buyer must take chances. It means that the buyer must take care." (See Wallis v.Russell (1902) 21 R 585, 615).
"Caveat emptor is the ordinary rule in contract. A vendor is under no duty to communicate the existence even of latent defects in his wares unless by act or implication he represents such defects not to exist." (See William R. Anson, Principles of the Law of Contract 245, Arthur L. Corbin Ed.3d. Am. ed.1919) Applying the maxim, it was held that it is the bounden duty of the purchaser to make all such necessary enquiries and to ascertain all the facts relating to the property to be purchased prior to committing in any manner.
"Caveat emptor, qui ignorare non debuit quod jus alienum emit. A maxim meaning "Let a purchaser beware; who ought not to be ignorant that he is purchasing the rights of another. (Hob. 99; Broom; Co., Litl. 102 a: 3 Taunt. 439). As the maxim applies, with certain specific restrictions, not only to the quality of, but also to the title to, land which is sold, the purchaser is generally bound to view the land and to enquire after and inspect the titledeeds; at his peril if he does not."
31. In the present case also, in view of the settled position of law, it was the duty of the defendant to make necessary inquiry regarding the status of the suit property. However, he did not act in a prudent manner. The defendant no. 1 was not required under law to inform the CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 26 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
plaintiff that the suit property was on a land belonging to the government. The plaintiff could have easily come to know about the said fact had he made proper inquiry regarding the ownership of the suit property. The fact that there was no sale deed in favour of the defendant no. 1 and that there was no complete chain of the documents of the ownership of the suit property were sufficient to create alarm in the mind of the plaintiff. However, he proceeded further despite knowing the defect in the title of the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that the suit property was demolished by Government of Delhi. However, even if it is presumed that the suit property was demolished by Government of Delhi, the plaintiff cannot recover the amount from the defendant No.1 for the aforementioned reasons. There are no merits in the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recovery of any amount from any of the defendant. Hence, the issues No.1 & 2 are decided accordingly.
32. Issue No.3 : Relief : In view of the discussion hereinabove, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any CS DJ No.6000/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 27 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022 Harish Kumar Vs. Nirmala & Anr.
relief. The suit of plaintiff is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost.
33. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Court on this 31 st Day of October 2022. Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2022.11.01 16:13:55 +0530 (DINESH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.CS DJ No.6000/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000418-2014 Page 28 of 28 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ-02/South/Saket/ND/31.10.2022