Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 593
High Court of Delhi
V.K. SHALI, J.
Vijay Prakash Verma – Appellant
Versus
Surinder Singh & Others – Respondent
RSA No. 140 of 2015
Decided On : 17-04-2015
For the Appellant:Manu Nayar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: --------
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Registration Act, Transfer of Property Act, and Limitation Act in determining the validity of a suit for specific performance and the effect of fraud or misrepresentation on a deed.
Headnote:
Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Suit for specific performance, declaration, cancellation and permanent injunction - Indian Registration Act, Transfer of Property Act, Limitation Act - The court discussed the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the meaning of the word 'date' in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, and the effect of fraud or misrepresentation on a deed. The court found that the suit was barred by time and rejected the plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance, declaration, cancellation, and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of a property purchased through agreements dated 27.07.1984 and 07.05.1990. The trial court rejected the plaint, and the first appellate court upheld the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was barred by time under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, as the period of limitation had expired before the suit was filed.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the meaning of the word 'date' in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, and the effect of fraud or misrepresentation on a deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was barred by time as the period of limitation had expired, and the appellant failed to show the applicability of relevant legal principles to the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment dated 24.12.2014 passed in RCA No.63/2014 titled Sh.Vijay Prakash Verma v. Sh.Surinder Singh by virtue of which the order dated 25.11.2014 rejecting the plaint of the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC has been upheld.
2. Before dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be pertinent to give the brief background of the case.
3. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance, declaration, cancellation and permanent injunction.
4. The case which was set up by the appellant in the plaint was that he had purchased a two room set on the first floor of the property No.2089, Katra Gokul Shah, Kucha Aqil Khan, Bazaar Sita Ram, Delhi - 110006 vide agreement dated 27.07.1984 and 07.05.1990 from one Smt.Prakash Kaur (since deceased) whose legal heirs have been impleaded as respondent Nos.2 to 6. It was alleged that the property was purchased for a total consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- which was paid on 22.10.1984, 27.07.1984, 08.05.1985 and 07.05.1990 for a sum of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, RS.15,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively.
5. It has been stated that the appellants were put in possession of the property on the basis of the said agreement. It is also the case of appellant that he gave a notice to the legal heirs requiring them to get the sale deed registered but the legal heirs did not come forward to perfect the title. It has been further stated that respondent No.13 filed a suit for eviction under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act claiming himself to be the purchaser of the suit property.
6. The following reliefs were sought by the appellant in the prayer clause:
“i) A decree of declaration to declare the plaintiff as owner of the suit property and that the sale dated 28.02.2000 executed in favour of defendant no.13 is illegal.
ii) A decree of specific performance in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of agreement to sell dated 27.07.1984 and 07.05.1990 entered into in respect of suit property.
iii) A decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant no.13 from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit property and from selling, alienating or creating any third party interest therein.”
7. The learned trial court in the order dated 25.11.2014 has recorded that so far as the first relief of declaration is concerned, that was withdrawn by the appellant on 30.09.2014. So far as the second relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.07.1984 and 07.05.1990 is concerned, the same has to be read in continuation and as an extension of the agreement dated 27.07.1984 when the suit property is purported to have been sold by Smt.Prakash Kaur since deceased to the appellant for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. It was noticed by the learned trial court since the property was sold by the aforesaid two agreements by Smt.Prakash Kaur to the appellant and the entire sale consideration was purportedly paid by the appellant to the vendor as well as the vendee was put into possession, therefore, nothing further remained to be done except that the document of sale deed was required to be got registered. It has been further observed in the impugned order that as the document in question which the appellant is calling to be an agreement to sell was in fact a sale deed, therefore, the said document ought to have been registered within the permissible time of four months from the date of signing of the agreements and since this was not done, therefore, the document could not have been read in evidence by virtue of Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. The learned trial court also observed that the suit for specific performance was required to be filed within a period of three years from a specific date which was set out in the agreement or from the date of its performance and since it was not specifically stated in the agreements in question what was
