Thursday, December 12, 2024
Latest:
delhihighcourt

RAKSHA RANI & ORS. vs JAGDISH RAJ SAGGAR

Information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 01st October, 2024
% Pronounced on: 11th December, 2024

+ C.R.P. 98/2023 & CM APPL. 19849/2023

1. RAKSHA RANI

W/o Late Shri Kirshan Lal,
R/o Flat No. 386, Sector-B4,
Pocket-6, Punjabi Colony,
Narela, New Delhi-110040 …..Petitioner No. 1

2. VIRENDER KUNDRA

S/o Late Shri Kirshan Lal,
R/o Flat No. 386, Sector-B4,
Pocket-6, Punjabi Colony,
Narela, New Delhi-110040 …..Petitioner No. 2

3. POONAM

W/o Ramesh Kumar,
D/o Late Shri Kirshan Lal,
R/o House No. 794/13,
Old, 2335, Gali No. 5,
Rani Bajar, Snaripura,
Amritsar, Punjab-143001 …..Petitioner No. 3

4. JATINDER KUNDRA

S/o Late Shri Kirshan Lal,
R/o Flat No. 386, Sector-B4,
Pocket-6, Punjabi Colony,
Narela, New Delhi-110040 …..Petitioner No. 4

5. RAJNI

W/o Narender Kumar,
D/o Late Shri Kirshan Lal,
R/o 260, DDA Quarters,
New Seemapuri,
Delhi-110095 …..Petitioner No. 5

Through: Ms. Ujala Vishnoi, Mr. Randeep Singh & Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocates.

versus

JAGDISH RAJ SAGGAR

S/o Late Shri Janak Raj Saggar,
R/o House No. 50, Siddarth Apartment,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110087 ….. Respondent

Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Ms. Jaspreet Kaur & Ms. Muskan Aggarwal, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Revision Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant No. 2/Virender Kundra against the Order dated 04.03.2023 vide which their Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC, 1908”) seeking rejection of the Suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff, has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.
2. The facts in brief are that the Respondent/Plaintiff had filed the Suit for Specific Performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2023 in respect of the Property bearing Flat No. 386, Pocket-6, Sector B-4, Narela, Delhi-110040 (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”) against the Petitioners/Defendants.
3. It is submitted that the subject property was allotted to Respondent/Defendant No.1/Raksha Rani and her husband, namely, Shri Kirshan Lal by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) vide File No. A-339, (1897) 2002/HSRPM/NA and vide Demand Letter dated 11.07.2002.
4. Shri Kirshan Lal deposited an amount of Rs. 53,047/- as first instalment towards the costs of the subject property on 22.07.2022 and the DDA handed over the possession of the subject property to Petitioner/Defendant No. 1/Raksha Rani and her husband, on 20.09.2002. The Petitioners/Defendants have since been residing in the subject property.
5. The Respondent/Plaintiff claimed that Late Shri Kirshan Lal and his wife, Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013 in respect of the subject property, whereby the total consideration was agreed as Rs. 42,00,000/-, out of which, Rs. 13,00,000/- was paid by him on 31.03.2013. As per the Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013, the Sale Deed was to be executed by 05.07.2013 or on completion of freehold formalities.
6. The Respondent/Plaintiff has further explained that the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1/Raksha Rani and her husband, Late Shri Kirshan Lal assured him that they would inform him once the subject property was made freehold and thereafter, the balance amount may be paid for execution of the Sale Deed and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the subject property to him. At the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell, the Respondent/Plaintiff was handed over the documents issued by the DDA such as Acknowledgement dated 13.07.2001, copy of the Bank Challans dated 12.07.2001 and 25.10.2004 and also the physical possession slip.
7. It is claimed that the Respondent/Plaintiff was always willing and ready to perform his part of the Contract.
8. It is submitted that Shri Kirshan Lal died on 17.12.2014, while the Petitioner/Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 got married. The Respondent/Plaintiff came to know about the demise of Shri Kirshan Lal and about his legal heirs on 27.05.2022. After receipt of the information in this regard, he contacted the Petitioners/Defendants who informed him that there were certain problems in getting the subject property freehold from DDA. However, they never informed that they has already got the subject property converted into freehold from DDA.
9. It is further explained that on 10.05.2022, the Respondent/Plaintiff came to know that the Petitioner/Defendant No. 2/Virender Kundra had got the subject property transferred in his name by virtue of a Gift Deed dated 15.02.2019 executed in his favour, by Petitioner/Defendant No. 1/Raksha Rani.
10. Thereafter, the Respondent/Plaintiff served the Legal Notice dated 10.05.2022, to which a false and frivolous Reply was sent by the Petitioners/Defendants. The Respondent/Plaintiff thus, filed the Suit for Specific Performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013 and Declaration of Gift Deed dated 15.02.2019 executed by the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1/Raksha Rani in favour of the Respondent/Defendant No. 2/Virender Kundra, as null and void and in the alternative, the recovery of the sum of Rs. 42,00,000/-.
11. The Petitioners/Defendants filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908, wherein the rejection of the Plaint of the Respondent/Plaintiff had been sought essentially on two grounds, namely;
(i) that the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013 was forged and fabricated and did not bear signatures of Petitioner/Defendant No. 1/Raksha Rani or of her husband Late Shri Kirshan Lal; and
(ii) that the Suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff was barred by limitation.
12. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the cause of action has to be ascertained only by referring to the averments made in the Plaint, according to which, the Respondent/Plaintiff came to know about the subject property having been made freehold and about the Gift Deed dated 15.02.2019 executed by the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1/Raksha Rani in favour of the Petitioner/Defendant No. 2/Virender Kundra, on 10.05.2022. Consequently, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed the Suit on 27.05.2022 i.e., within a period of three years and within limitation.
13. It was further observed that whether the Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013 has forged and fabricated signatures, is a matter of trial. The Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants was consequently, dismissed.
14. Aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 04.03.2023, the present Revision Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants.
15. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ defendant has essentially argued on the same lines as the assertions made in the Revision petition. Reliance has been placed on Fatehji and Company & Anr. vs L.M. Nagpal & Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 390, Hazari Lal (Dead) Thr. LRs vs Ramesh Kumar & Ors., 2023 INSC 1001, Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs Ram Prasanna Singh, (2020) 16 SCC 601, Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kayanji Bhansuli (Gajra) & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 366, and C.S. Ramaswamy vs V.K. Senthil & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1330.
16. Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued that the impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Submissions heard and the record perused.
18. The entire cause of action in the Plaint is based on the Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013, wherein it was specifically provided that the sale consideration agreed by the parties was Rs. 42,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 13,00,000/- was paid as Bayana on 31.03.2013 to the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1/Raksha Rani and her husband, Late Shri Kirshan Lal.
19. It was further provided in Clause 2 of the Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013, that the balance amount of Rs. 29,00,000/- shall be paid on or before 05.07.2013 or on completion of freehold and the first party i.e., the Petitioners/Defendants shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession to the Respondent/Plaintiff, the second party.
20. From these covenants of Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013, it is evident that the Sale Deed pursuant to the Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013 was to be executed on the subject property being made freehold. The Petitioner/Defendant No. 1/Raksha Rani got the subject property freehold on 07.02.2019.
21. According to the averments made in the Plaint, the Respondent/Plaintiff came to know that the subject property has been made freehold, only on 10.05.2022. Whether the Respondent/Plaintiff had the knowledge prior to this Deed, is a question of fact which cannot be ascertained without recording the evidence of the parties.
22. The second ground agitated was that the signatures of the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1/Raksha Rani and her husband on the Agreement to Sell dated 01.04.2013, were forged and fabricated. However, it is a defence of the Petitioners/Defendants which is required to be proved by way of evidence.
23. The Suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation or that the signatures are forged, in light of the averments made in the Plaint under O.VII Rule 11 CPC, as rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge.
Relief: –
24. In view of above, there is no merit in the present Revision Petition which is hereby dismissed along with pending Application.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE

DECEMBER 11, 2024
S.Sharma

C.R.P. 98/2023 Page 1 of 7