Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Two release deeds in Nitin Saxena vs Amit Saxena on 6 December, 2024Matching Fragments
Arguments on behalf of the defendant
2. Mr. Saket Sikri and Mr Anirudh Bakhru, learned counsels for the applicant/defendant stated that the present suit filed in October, 2023 seeking a decree of declaration and cancellation of the two release deeds, which were admittedly executed by the plaintiff on 13.08.2014 in respect of the property bearing No. WZ-300A, built-up on Plot No.GL-11, part of Khasra No.839-840 situated in the area of Village Tihar, New Delhi now known as G-Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring total area of 200 sq. yds. ('suit property') is barred by limitation. It is stated that as per Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act the period of limitation to seek cancellation expired on 13.08.2017 and the present suit filed in October, 2023 after a lapse of more than 9 years is, therefore, barred in law. 2.1. The learned counsels placed reliance on the judgment of the Supereme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali1 to contend that in similar facts the suit seeking cancellation of registered sale deed was dismissed for being filed beyond the limitation period. 2.2. It is stated that the allegation in the plaint that the consideration of Rs. 55,00,000/- recorded in the release deeds remains unpaid is without any merit as the plaintiff has admitted receipt of the entire consideration before the concerned Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration of the said release deeds.
be sought on this basis. In this regard the counsels relied upon the observations of Supreme Court at paragraph 29.9 of the judgment in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai (supra).
Arguments on behalf of the plaintiff
3. In reply, Mr. Pawanjit Bindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/plaintiff stated that the two release deeds in respect of the suit property were executed by the plaintiff on the representation of the defendant that the said documentation would facilitate obtaining statutory permissions and licences from the local authorities, which in turn would enable fetching higher rental for the suit property. He stated that no consideration was received by the plaintiff under the release deeds as the said documents were not intended to denude the plaintiff of his 50% ownership rights in the suit property. He stated that the transaction of release recorded in the said release deeds was never intended to be acted upon and the documents are a sham.
15. The plaintiff has alleged that, thus, the release deeds were sham documents and there was no intention of the plaintiff to actually transfer right, title and interest in favour of the defendant.
16. The reason set up at paragraph no. 10 of the plaint is the only explanation furnished in the pleading for alleging that the two release deeds are sham documents.
15. In March 2022, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to make the payment of arrears in the said rental amount qua his share and further requested for the partition the suit property. However, the Defendant refused to do so on one pretext or the other and lastly threatened to create third party interest in the property by misusing the said two release deeds that he got executed in his favour by exercising undue influence, coercion, fraud and misrepresentation upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff reserves his right to initiate criminal proceedings against the Defendant for the said offence committed by him."