Compliance with legal provisions for property transactions is crucial, and fraudulent claims are not accepted by the court.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

C.M. Nos.12230/2015 & 12231/2015 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Applications stand disposed of.

REVIEW PET. NO. 333/2015

2. The present Review Petition is filed on the ground that liberty was given by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.01.2015 in SLP Nos.34952-34953/2014. This order of the Supreme Court dated 16.01.2015 reads as under:-

“ORDER

Delay condoned.

The only point raised by the present petitioner(s) is that on the basis of his signatures obtained on a blank paper by his counsel, the Second Appeal was not pressed and the same was consequently dismissed. If that is so, the petitioners are at liberty to move the High Court by filing a review petition.

The Special leave petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.”

3. Review is sought of a consent order dated 19.03.2014 by which the counsel for the appellant after arguing this Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against concurrent judgments did not press the appeal on merits, but only sought time to vacate the suit premises till 31.12.2014 for the appellants, and who are son and daughter-in-law of the respondents/plaintiffs. The suit property is the property bearing no. A-1, 60 Foota Road, Shri Ram Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Delhi-110094 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). This consent order dated 19.03.2014 not pressing the Second Appeal reads as under:-

“1. After arguments, counsel for the appellants on instructions from the appellants states that the appeal be dismissed as not pressed but the appellants be granted time till 31.12.2014 to vacate the suit premises. It is also agreed that whatever electricity and water charges are payable with respect to the portion in occupation of the appellants/defendants, all such charges will be cleared till the possession of the suit property bearing no.A-1, 60 Foota Road, Shri Ram Colony, Rajiv Nagar Delhi-110094 is handed over to the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. Let the appellants file an undertaking in terms of the present order within a period of two weeks from today and on the appellants filing the aforesaid undertaking and complying with the terms of the same, appellants will not be evicted from the suit premises till 31.12.2014 in execution of the impugned judgment and decree. Parties are left to bear their own costs.” (underlining added)

4. It is unfortunate that the dishonest litigants pollute the stream of justice for their own convenience.

5. The present appellants/review petitioners are such dishonest litigants.

6. It is noted that there are two concurrent judgments against the appellants. The Second Appeal was filed against the judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs with respect to the possession of the suit property having an area of 60 sq. yards. Appellants/defendants were not vacating the suit property. Appellants/defendants claim to have purchased the suit property from the respondents/plaintiffs in terms of the documentation being the Gift Deed, General Power of Attorney, Possession Letter and Affidavit all dated 25.03.2008. Admittedly, the Gift Deed is not registered and documents relied upon by the appellants/defendants are dated 25.03.2008 i.e. after the amendment of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and other related Sections of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable to Delhi, by Act 48 of 2001 w.e.f 24.09.2001. The effect of the amendments is that no benefit of the doctrine of part performance was available with respect to the documents executed on or after 24.09.2001 unless the documents were stamped with 90% of the Sale Deed and were also registered.

7. This has also so been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656.

8. In view of the fact that the appellants/defendants had no case and after arguments, which is noted in the order dated 19.03.2014,