Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1751
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Mukesh Kapil - Appellant
Versus
Parag P. Tripathi & Ors. - Resopndent
CS(OS) 2095/2013 and I.As. 17420-22/2013 & 18000-18001 of 2013
Decided On : 10-12-2013
For the Plaintiff:Dr. Harish Uppal, Advocate.
For the Defendants : None.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's claims of fraud and unlawfulness were baseless, and the agreements and court orders related to the property dispute were lawful and enforceable.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - Government Grants Act, 1895 - Sections 17 and 40 of the Contract Act, 1872 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Order 23 Rule 3A CPC - Res Judicata - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Government Grants Act, 1895, Sections 17 and 40 of the Contract Act, 1872, Limitation Act, 1963, Order 23 Rule 3A CPC]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking various reliefs related to a property dispute, alleging that certain agreements and court orders were obtained by fraud and were unlawful. The plaintiff claimed that the agreements and orders were in violation of the perpetual lease executed in favor of his father and were obtained by fraud and falsehood.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claims were without merit and rejected the suit, stating that no cause of action had arisen for the reliefs sought. The court also held that the suit was barred by res judicata, the law of limitation, and Order 23 Rule 3A CPC. The plaintiff was subjected to costs for filing a frivolous suit.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included allegations of fraud, violation of perpetual lease conditions, and the legality of agreements and court orders related to the property dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's claims were baseless and that the agreements and court orders were lawful and enforceable. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff's conduct in filing the suit was frivolous and resulted in unnecessary consumption of the court's time.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plaintiff's suit, stating that it did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by res judicata, the law of limitation, and Order 23 Rule 3A CPC. The plaintiff was subjected to costs for filing a frivolous suit.
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek the following substantial reliefs:
“a) That a decree of declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that settlement dated 01.10.2001 is unlawful, illegal, and not enforceable in law, having been obtained by fraud and being per incuriam;
b) That a decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the order/decree dated 03.10.2001 & 2.11.2001 passed in AA 12/96 & connected suits bearing CS(OS) No. 627/97, 628/97, 1045/97,1180/97, 1188/97 and 1190/97 as well as CCP No. 39/97, 35/98, 36/98 and 43/97 be declared as null and void as having been obtained by fraud and being per incuriam and in consequence thereof the sale deed dated 1.3.2011 in favour of defendant No. 5 be directed to be cancelled and set aside and possession of the whole property 14, Bazar Lane of all the floors be directed to be restored to the plaintiff;
c) That a decree of declaration that order dated 28.5.2002 passed in CW 1933/2002 by S.K. Mahajan, J be set aside as the defendant No. 1 had no locus standi and as such order was obtained by fraud and falsehood stated in the court;
d) That a decree for mandatory injunction be passed directing the revival of the Arbitration Application AA No. 12/96 titled as Darshan Lal Kapil v. Ranjit Towers Pvt. Ltd. and such all other cases mentioned therein may also be revived accordingly which were disposed/decreed/decided by orders/decree dated 3.10.2001 and 2.11.2001;
e) That a decree for perpetual injunction be passed restraining the defendants their agents, servants, nominees and employees etc. from assigning, parting or in any way creating any third party interest in the suit property;”
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the plaintiff was called upon to make his submissions to satisfy the Court with regard to the maintainability of the suit, in light of the averments made therein and the documents filed along with the suit. The issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit arises in the following factual background discernable from the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed on record.
3. The plaintiff’s father late Sh. Darshan Lal Kapil was the original lessee of the property bearing No. Block No. 205-C Plot No. 22 (Old) now known as 14, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. The lease was granted and duly registered on 23.04.1936 by the Governor General in Council, i.e. the lessor. The plaintiff states that defendant No. 3 M/s Ranjit Towers (I) Private Limited entered into an agreement with late Sh. Darshan Lal Kapil on 17.02.1992 for re-development/addition and alteration of the suit property on the terms & conditions mentioned therein. Under the said agreement dated 17.02.1992, defendant No. 3 was obliged to re-develop the property -- and, in consideration thereof, was entitled to deal with certain portions of the suit property.
4. Some of the relevant recitals and terms of the agreement dated 17.02.1992 entered into between late Sh. Darshan Lal Kapil and defendant No. 3 for re-development of the property read as follows:
“AND WHEREAS the Owners want to redevelop the above mentioned property. However, the Owners are not fully equipped to execute and complete the work of development of the said property and have negotiated with the Developers to make additions, alterations, and redevelop the property bearing No. 14, Bazar Lane, Babar Road, New Delhi as per the sanctioned plans with permissible and compatable deviations. AND WHEREAS the parties here to mutually agreed to utilise the said property for redeveloping on the terms and conditions hereinafter appearing.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED, DECLARED, COVENANTED, RECORDED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the subject matter of this Agreement between the Owners and Developers is the existing property No. 14, Bazar Lane, Babar Road, New Delhi for redevelopment/construction of residential dwell
