Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1425
High Court of Delhi
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Bidhan Chand Biswas (Since Deceased) Through Lrs.
Versus
Prakash Chand Bansal & Others
RSA No. 131 of 2014
Decided On: 20-05-2014
For the Appellant:K.P.S. Chauhan, with Nasimuddin, Advocates.
For the Respondents: None.
Validity of contractual documents and the requirement of possession under the Land Acquisition Act for ownership transfer.
Headnote:
Caveat - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 100
Fact of the Case:
The suit property consisted of two shops and one room. The respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs claimed ownership of the property, which was contested by the defendant no.1/appellants. The defendant no.1 argued that the property belonged to them due to a Cancellation Deed executed by the original owner.
Finding of the Court:
The first appellate court held that the Cancellation Deed was not valid and the respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the property. The court also rejected the argument that the Union of India had acquired the property, stating that possession must be taken under the Land Acquisition Act for the Union of India to become the owner.
Issues: Ownership of the suit property, validity of the Cancellation Deed, and the Union of India's claim to the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that contractual documents can only be nullified by means of contractual documents, and possession must be taken under the Land Acquisition Act for the Union of India to become the owner of an acquired property.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the first appellate court's decision in favor of the respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
1. No one appears for the caveators. Caveat stands discharged.
C.M. No. 8871 of 2014 (exemption)
2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RSA No. 131 of 2014 and C.M. No. 8870 of 2014 (stay)
3. This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 21.1.2014. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment set aside the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit and the suit was decreed so far as the relief of declaration is concerned holding that the respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property admeasuring 50 sq yds falling in khasra no.610, bearing no.D-1, Ashok Nagar (near Hanuman Mandir) Railway crossing, Delhi 110093. The suit property essentially consisted of two shops and one room.
4. The respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs are husband and wife. Respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 purchased the suit property from one Smt. Dharamwati Shukla on 22.10.1997. The rights in the suit property were purchased by means of the usual documents being the agreement to sell, power of attorney, Will, receipt etc, and which documents have been proved and exhibited before the trial court as Ex.PW2/1 (general power of attorney), Ex.PW2/3 (agreement to sell), Ex.PW2/4 (affidavit), Ex.PW2/6 (Will) and Ex.PW2/2 (money receipt). The agreement to sell and the power of attorney are the registered documents i.e they are registered before the sub-Registrar. Respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 after purchase of the property transferred the same in the name of his wife/respondent no.2/plaintiff no.2. Smt. Dharamwati Shukla from whom the respondent no.1 purchased the property ‘cancelled’ the documentation executed in favour of respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 by a Cancellation Deed dated 4.5.2001 and whereafter Smt. Dharamwati Shukla executed the usual documents being the general power of attorney, agreement to sell etc on 9.5.2001 in favour of the defendant no.1/appellants who are legal heirs of the defendant no.1 with respect to the suit property. Suit was thus filed to questions the Cancellation Deed dated 4.5.2001 and for declaration of respondents/ plaintiffs as owners of the suit property
5. The issue which was urged before the court below on behalf of the appellants/ defendant no.1 was that the defendant no.1 was the owner of the suit property because Smt. Dharamwati Shukla had cancelled the documents executed in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 by the Cancellation Deed dated 4.5.2001. This Cancellation Deed has been proved before the trial court as Ex.PW4/1 on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs inasmuch as in the plaint declaration was sought with respect to invalidity of this registered Cancellation Deed dated 4.5.2001 executed by Smt. Dharamwati Shukla. The defendant no.1 is said to have purchased rights in the suit property thereafter by means of the usual documents which were proved and exhibited as Ex.DW1/2 and Ex.DW1/3.
6. The first appellate court, in my opinion, has rightly held that once the registered documents dated 22.10.1997 were executed by Smt. Dharamwati Shukla in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1, Smt. Dharamwati Shukla could not have thereafter unilaterally cancelled the documents by means of the Cancellation Deed dated 4.5.2001. Once cancellation of the document by Smt. Dharamwati Shukla is held not to be valid, she hence could not have transferred title of the suit property to the appellants/defendant no.1 allegedly because she once again could not become the owner of the suit property on the supposed ground of the validity of the Cancellation Deed dated 4.5.2001. The first appellate court has also rightly overruled the conclusion of the trial court that the documents in question dated 22.10.1997 executed by Smt. Dharamwati Shukla in favour of the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 do not confer rights and this aspect ha
