Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
A.P. Shah, C.J. and S. Muralidhar, J.
Vije Kumar and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Vaibhav Gupta and Ors. - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 309 of 2008 and Civil Misc. No. 8540 of 2008
Decided On: 08.07.2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a property dispute, considering the allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents.
Headnote:
Forgery - Property Dispute - [Forgery] - [Property Dispute] - [Indian Penal Code, Section 420; Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482] - The court discussed the allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents in a property dispute. It highlighted the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Section 420, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482, and their implications in determining the maintainability of the writ petition and the final decision of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants claimed to have purchased a property and were involved in a dispute with the respondents who alleged misuse of power and authority by the police. The court appointed a Local Commissioner to seal the property due to rival claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition filed by the respondents was misconceived and not maintainable as it sought to raise disputed questions of fact pertaining to the title and possession of the property, which cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that too in the criminal jurisdiction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disputed property ownership, allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents, and the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as it sought to raise disputed questions of fact pertaining to the title and possession of the property, and the appointment of a Local Commissioner to seal the property was beyond the scope of the powers of a writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 13th March, 2008 was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable. The status quo ante impugned order dated 13th March, 2008 was restored, and the appeal was allowed with costs to be paid by the respondents to the appellants.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th March, 2008 passed by the learned single judge of this Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 328 of 2008.
2. The writ petition was filed by Vaibhav Gupta and his wife Anjali Gupta against the Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer of Police Station Chitranjan Park, New Delhi alleging misuse of the power and authority by the police and seeking protection of the writ petitioners to "use and enjoy the property which has been purchased by them for variable consideration and not to interfere into peaceful use and enjoyment of the property being E-558A, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi (property).
3. The writ petitioners in para 3 of the petition claimed that:
3. ...the petitioners purchased plot measuring 723 sq. yds. More particularly described as Plot No. E-558-A, G.K. II, New Delhi vide three separate registered sale deeds dated 28.11.2006, 4.12.2006 and 18.12.2006 respectively in the name of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 75 lakh from its registered original owners Shri Vijay Kumar, Shri Ramesh Kumar, Shri Pawan Kumar all sons of Shri Mohan Lal through their brother and General Power of Attorney Shri Jitender Kumar, son of Shri Mohan Lal r/o A-364 Gokul Puri, Delhi110094.
4. The petitioners enclosed photocopies of the sale deeds as well as of the deed of General Power of Attorney (GPA) stated to have been executed in favour of Jitender Kumar Sharma by Vijay Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Pawan Kumar. It was stated in the writ petition that there was only one room built in the entire plot on which the writ petitioners had affixed their lock and were therefore in possession. It is claimed that when, with a view to repairing the main gate, they visited the plot on 24th December, 2007 along with certain labourers a person by the name of Partap Mohan obstructed the labourers and did not allow them to carry out the repair work. Petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint with the SHO, PS Chitranjan Park on 24th December, 2007. It stated further that when petitioner No. 1 sought to recommence the repair work of the main gain on 10th March, 2008, a Beat Constable of the area came to the site made inquiries and threatened petitioner No. 1 to stay away since the property belonged to the current SHO, Chitranjan Park. It is then claimed that the SHO also came to the site and warned the petitioner No. 1 to keep off the plot.
5. On the basis of the above allegations, the aforementioned writ petition was filed on 12th March, 2008. On 13th March, 2008 the following impugned order was passed by the learned single Judge:
13. 3.2008.
Present: A.B. Dial, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.K. Sashisth for the Petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Bipin, Advocate for the State.
W.P. (Crl.) 328/2008 & CM. No. 3149/2008
Issue Notice.
Mr. Akshay Bipin, Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.
Mr. Akshay Bipin, learned Counsel for the State says that this property belongs to three persons who are NRIs namely Pawan Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Ramesh Kumar, and they have never given any power of attorney to Jitender Kumar. They are original allottees of the plot from M/s DLF. They have never sold the property to the petitioners nor given any power of attorney. They have never executed any document in favour of Jitender Kumar. The counsel for the respondents states that Jitender Kumar appears to be a fictitious person as his address on the sale deed has been found to be false. Learned Counsel for the respondents states that the person residing at the address given is Sohan Lal and no such person by the name of Jitender Kumar resides at AO-364, Gokul Puri, New Delhi. Learned Counsel for the respondents further states that some forgery appears to have been committed in this case and some fictitious sale deed has been executed with regard to the said property by a fictitious person Jitender Kumar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply the copy of the original sa
