High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH
Maj Yash Pal Malik
Versus
Rama Arora & Others
CS(OS) No. 1248 of 2012
Decided on : 09-05-2012
Fraud - Property Sale Agreement - RTGS Scheme - Dishonoured DDs - I.A. No.8277/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.1 & 2 CPC, by plaintiff) & I.A. No.8705/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.4 CPC, by D-1 to 3) - Order XXXIX, Rule 4 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration/cancellation of property sale documents and obtained an interim order restraining the defendants from transferring the property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to make the full payment as per the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had received the full payment through RTGS, which was not disclosed in the suit. The court suspended the interim order and directed completion of pleadings.
Issues: Concealment of material facts, validity of interim order, completion of pleadings
Ratio Decidendi: The court suspended the interim order due to the plaintiff's failure to disclose receipt of payment through RTGS, which was a material fact. The court directed completion of pleadings to consider the conflicting claims.
Final Decision: The court suspended the interim order and directed completion of pleadings for further consideration.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. Oral:
I.A. No.8277/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.1 & 2 CPC, by plaintiff) & I.A. No.8705/2012 (u/o XXXIX, R.4 CPC, by D-1 to 3)
1. The plaintiff has filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration/ cancellation of documents, with consequential relief of mandatory and perpetual injunction. The suit along with the interim application was listed before Court on 02.05.2012. The following interim order was passed:-
“……Till the next date of hearing, the defendants are restrained from transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest or parting with possession of the suit property, i.e. bearing No.A-1/74, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi.
The defendants are also restrained from raising construction or changing the nature of the suit property till then…”
2. The case set-up by the plaintiff in the suit is that he along with his wife entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.06.2010 with defendant No.4, for the sale of the property in question for the total sale consideration of Rs.8,50,00,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement dated 04.06.2010, defendant No.4, admittedly, paid a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- to the plaintiff, i.e. Rs.60,00,000/- in cash and another sum of Rs.60,00,000/- by way of two cheques bearing No.054512 dated 04.05.2010 and No.054511 dated 04.06.2010, both amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- each drawn on HDFC Bank, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. It was also agreed that another sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- would be paid by defendant No.4 to the plaintiff within 90 days from the signing of the agreement to sell, and the balance sale consideration of Rs.6,10,00,000/- was payable by defendant No.4 on or before 31.12.2010. Thereafter, as per the case of the plaintiff, defendant No.4 could not adhere to the time schedule in terms of the agreement to sell, although the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
3. Thereafter, defendant No.4 approached the plaintiff to extend the time again and again and on 04.10.2011, he agreed to pay Rs.1,10,00,000/- through one Shri Rajesh Batra, who was the property broker, for defendant No.4 in the following manner:-
(i) Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 07.10.2011
(ii) Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 15.10.2011
(iii) Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 20.10.2011
4. However, inspite of repeated promises, defendant No.4 failed to make the payment of the balance consideration. Later on, according to the plaintiff, as per Clause-8 of the agreement to sell, defendant No.4 assigned the agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.3, who was the employee of defendants No.1 & 2, who agreed to pay the sum of Rs.6,10,00,000/- towards the balance sale consideration of the property in question. It is specifically mentioned in para-20 of the plaint that the plaintiff agreed and consented to execute the sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of defendant No.1, only on receipt of entire balance sale consideration of Rs.6,10,00,000/- from defendant No.1 through banker cheque/drafts only. Defendant No.2 thereafter requested the plaintiff to bifurcate the transfer documents into two documents, i.e. Sale Deed and Agreement of Malwa in the manner that Rs.4,00,00,000/- to be shown in the Sale Deed and Rs.2,10,00,000/- to be shown in the Agreement of Malwa.
5. As admitted by the plaintiff in para-23 of the plaint that on 19.04.2012, the plaintiff executed both the documents, i.e. the Sale Deed and the Agreement of Malwa in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the property in question against the sale consideration of Rs.6,10,00,000/-. In para-24 of the plaint, the details of the bankers’ cheque issued are given. The same read as under:-
(i) Rs.2,00,00,000/- vide Pay Order No.392430 dated 12.04.2012
(ii) Rs.2,00,00,000/- vide Pay Order No.392431 dated 12.04.2012
(iii) Rs.1,10,00,000/- vide DD No.392437 dated 16.04.2012
(iv) Rs.25,00,000/- vide DD No.392440 dated 17.04.2012
(v) Rs.25,00,000/- vide DD No.466726 dated 12.04.2012
(vi) Rs.25,00
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.