RSS ESTATE LLP & ANR. vs MONICA GOGIA

$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 105/2024
RSS ESTATE LLP & ANR. …..Appellants
Through: Mr.Sunil Dalal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Ajay Kohli, Mr.Tanjit Singh, Mr.Adit Khorana, Ms.Dipika Prasad, Mr.Rahul Rana, Mr.Nikhil Beniwal, Mr.Vivek Kumar, Mr.Dishant Tiwari, Mr.Vijay Pratap Singh, Mr.Anchit Sangwan, Mr.Amit Agnihotri, Mr.Neeraj Basoya and Ms.Ira Rana, Advocates.

versus
MONICA GOGIA …..Respondent
Through: Mr.Abhimanyu Bhandari with Mr.Arjun Syal, Mr.Shreyan Dass, Mr.Raghuveer Kapur and Mr.Randeep Sachdeva, Advocates. Mr.Tanmaya Metha with Ms.Nattasha Garg and Mr.Thakur Ankit Singh, Advocates for impleader-Mr.Manoj Kumar.
% Date of Decision: 31st July, 2024
CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL) Caveat No.344/2024
1. Since appearance has been entered upon on behalf of the respondent, the caveat stands discharged.
C.M.Nos.43249-43250/2024
2.
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3.
Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.

FAO(OS) 105/2024 & C.M.No.43248/2024
4.
Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 8th July, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 5872/2024 (Application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, 1908 on behalf of the Appellants herein seeking vacation of ad-interim stay) in CS (OS) 202/2024 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the Appellants herein stating that there is a prima facie case in favour of the Respondent.

5.
Learned counsel for the Appellant states that on 20th January, 2024, the Respondent/Plaintiff offered and agreed to sell the land admeasuring 12 bighas and 02 biswas, bearing Mustatil No.33, Killa No. 17 min (4-0), 23 min (2-8), 24 (4-16) and Mustatil no. 42, Killa No. 32 (0-18) situated in the revenue estate of Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi [“subject property”] to the Appellants for Rs.105.50 crores i.e. (a) the “Back Portion” (admeasuring 8168 sq. yds.) for a total sale consideration of Rs.95.50 Crores and (b) the “front portion” comprising of Plot No.1 and Plot No.2 vide two separate sale deeds for sale consideration of Rs.4 crores and Rs.6 crores respectively.

6.
He states that it was agreed that the sale deed with respect to the “back portion” shall be executed on or before 22nd July, 2024 by which time; the entire balance consideration shall be paid by the Appellants to the Respondent. He states that an Agreement to Sell dated 22nd January, 2024 was executed by the Respondent in favor of Appellant No.1 for sale of Back Portion of subject property for a total sale consideration of Rs.95.50 Crores [“ATS-Back Portion”]. He states that the Appellants have already paid a sum of Rs.18.50 Crores to the Respondent and the balance consideration of Rs.77.00 crores is liable to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff on or before 22nd July, 2024.

7.
He states that it was agreed between the parties that the Respondent shall transfer/sell the “front portion” vide 2 separate sale deeds with respect to Plot No. 1 (admeasuring 2016 sq. yds.) and Plot No.2 (admeasuring 2016 sq. yds.) immediately after clearing the entire loan dues of HDFC Bank, as availed by the Respondent on the security of the subject property on or before 20th February, 2024.

8.
He states that the Respondent herself got installed a separate gate for usage for the said back portion in January 2024 itself so as to demarcate and separate the said back portion from Plot No.1 and 2 and provide exclusive separate passage to Plot No.1 and Plot No.2 upon execution of two sale deeds in respect thereof in favour of the Appellants.

9.
He states that on 23rd February, 2024, the Respondent executed two separate registered Sale Deeds for Plot No.1 & 2 of the subject property in favour of the Appellants thereby transferring the absolute title in the said Plot no. 1 and 2 in favour of the Appellants. He states that the Respondent appeared before the Sub Registrar along with her son who witnessed the

same and acknowledged the receipt of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4 crores and Rs 6. crores respectively and admitted the contents of the sale deeds to be correct. He further states that the respective sale deeds also bear the photograph of the Respondent on the face of the said documents along with her Aadhar Card and PAN Card.

10.
He states that the said two registered Sale Deeds have also been signed as well as finger and thumb impressed by the Respondent and her son

i.e. Sh. Ankur Gogia appearing as witness no.1. He further states that the Respondent and the witnesses even appeared before the Sub-Registrar and even the Sub-Registrar has certified the said fact. He also states that on the same day i.e. 23rd February, 2024, the Respondent handed over the vacant peaceful possession of the Plot No.1 and 2 to the Appellants.
11.
He states that on 09th March, 2024, the Respondent filed the subject suit while concealing the entire process of execution and registration of two separate sale deeds which were also witnessed by her son and side gate for use of the Back Portion thereby, seeking to dishonestly resile from the said registered sale deeds. He states that it is a matter of fact that the Respondent/plaintiff is a Doctor; her son is a highly qualified professional and her husband is a Chartered Accountant. He states that the pleas raised by the Respondent in the plaint are patently false and an abuse the process of Court. He states that the husband of the Respondent/plaintiff played an active role in the execution of the sale deeds as is evident from the WhatsApp chats.

12.
He states that the impugned order is clearly erroneous both in law and on facts resulting in grave prejudice to the rights of the Appellants, who are admittedly the registered owners of the suit property and in exclusive

possession thereof.

13.
Issue notice.

14.
Mr.Abhimanyu Bhandari, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He vehemently defends the impugned order and has referred to the operative portion of the said order. He further states in case the interim order is interfered with, the respondent shall have no access to the rear portion where she is presently living with her family. He states that the sale consideration for the suit property recorded in the impugned sale deeds is incorrect as it is not the actual consideration agreed between the parties. He states that as per the Respondent/plaintiff the agreed sale consideration for the suit property was Rs. 38 crores and not Rs. 10 crores as recorded in the impugned sale deeds.

15.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the prima facie view that there is a presumption under law that a registered document has been validly executed and cannot be discarded or disregarded lightly and in a cursory manner. Undoubtedly, the presumption of genuineness attached to a registered sale deed is a rebuttable one, but it can be rebutted only by leading cogent evidence. At the prima facie stage, the presumption of genuineness and validity of a registered document shall have to be given effect to. The Respondent/plaintiff has challenged the registered sale deeds on the plea of inadequate consideration; however, Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 expressly stipulates that an agreement is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate and the issue of inadequacy of consideration would require leading of proof by the party seeking to resile from the agreement.

16.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 08th July, 2024 is stayed till further orders.

17.
Reply affidavit, if any, be filed by the respondent within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

18.
List on 19th November, 2024.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JULY 31, 2024 KA