Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1825
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Chand Ram @ Ram Kishan - Appellant
Versus
Bhateri Devi & Ors. - Respondents
RSA 286/2015
Decided on : 03.08.2015
Mr. J.P. Sengh, Ms. Gita Dhingra and Ms. Vanessa Singh, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a relinquishment deed obtained fraudulently is null and void, and the rightful owners are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction.
Headnote:
Fraudulent Relinquishment Deed - Property Dispute - RSA 286/2015 & C.M. No.13725/2015 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the validity of the relinquishment deed executed in 1993, the valuation of the suit property, and the entitlement to a decree of permanent injunction. The court also considered the issue of limitation and the presumption of validity in respect of registered documents. The judgment was based on the preponderance of probabilities and the conduct of the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the plaintiffs sought a declaration against the defendants, claiming that a relinquishment deed executed in 1993 was null and void. The defendants claimed exclusive ownership of the property based on the relinquishment deed.
Finding of the Court:
The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the relinquishment deed was fraudulently obtained and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of permanent injunction.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the relinquishment deed, the valuation of the suit property, the entitlement to a decree of permanent injunction, and the issue of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the relinquishment deed was obtained fraudulently, the suit property was properly valued, and the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of permanent injunction. The court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law for consideration.
The court concluded that the relinquishment deed executed in 1993 was obtained through fraudulent means, as it was not executed with the genuine intention of transferring ownership rights and was concealed from the plaintiffs until 2007. The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiffs were misled and that their consent was vitiated by false pretenses, rendering the deed invalid. Additionally, the conduct of the defendant, including his delay in asserting ownership and the joint use of the property by all brothers, further supported the finding that the deed was not a legitimate transfer of ownership. Consequently, the court held that the relinquishment deed was null and void due to its fraudulent procurement. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to a declaration of nullity of the deed and to an injunction to prevent further misuse of the property, affirming their rights as co-owners and nullifying the fraudulent transfer.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
C.M. No.13724/2015
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
RSA 286/2015 & C.M. No.13725/2015
3. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Senior Civil Judge – cum – RC (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in RCA No.11/2014, whereby the Regular First Appeal preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.S. No.722/2014 has been allowed and the said judgment of the Trial Court set aside. The suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was, accordingly, decreed. Plaintiff No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) Smt. Bhateri Devi is the mother of plaintiffs No.2 & 3 – respondents No.2 & 3 herein, the appellant – defendant No.1, and respondent No.4 – defendant No.2 in the suit. The parties are permanent residents of House No.99, Village Bharola, Azadpur, Delhi.
4. The case of the plaintiffs was that the property bearing No.117, Municipal No.129, Village Bharola, Azadpur, Delhi admeasuring 80 sq. yards was the ancestral property of the parties to the suit. The said property was inherited by the parties to the suit in equal shares after the death of Sh.Bhim Singh, husband of respondent No.1 and father of the appellant and respondents No.2 to 4 on 04.06.1975.
5. The parties to the suit had joined together and filed a suit for possession in the Delhi High Court, bearing Suit No.73/1986 titled as “Smt. Bhateri Devi & Others Vs. Rohtash Singh & Another”. The said suit was, subsequently, transferred to the District Court. The appellant requested the respondents, who were co-owners of the suit property, to execute a Power of Attorney in his favour so that he may look after the proceedings in the aforesaid suit in the High Court, and the respondents may be saved from attending the Courts. Believing upon the said representation of the appellants, all the respondents, who are the mother and real brothers of the appellant, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant. The plaintiffs stated that they did not realize the mala fide intention of the appellant behind the idea of execution of Power of Attorney. The plaintiffs stated that the appellant requested them to come to the office of the Sub-Registrar for execution of Power of Attorney in his favour. In good faith, and believing the version of the appellant, the respondents went to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 11.06.1993 to execute the Power of Attorney specifically for the purpose of enabling the appellant to conduct the proceedings in the said suit. The plaintiffs signed the document as directed by the appellant, believing that they all were signing upon the Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant, thereby authorizing him to look after the proceedings of the said case and to appear on their behalf in the said suit. The plaintiffs stated that they were incapable of understanding English language and they signed the document as per the directions of the appellant and the same was got registered. The document was not read over and explained to the plaintiffs by anybody.
6. The plaintiffs stated that the aforesaid suit “Smt. Bhateri Devi Vs. Rohtash Singh & Another” was decided and possession of the property was received by the plaintiffs in that suit, i.e. the plaintiffs in the present suit, the defendants, and Smt. Prakasho Devi in execution proceedings. Plaintiffs disclosed that there is one shop in the suit property bearing No.129 in which plaintiffs No.2 & 3 were running a Sweet Meat Shop on the ground floor and, on the first floor, some labour of plaintiffs No.2 & 3, and the son of defendant No.1 were residing. Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 were running their business and earning their livelihood peacefully.
7. On 12.10.2007, the defendant No.1/appellant came to the said shop and directed the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 (respondents No.2 & 3) to vacate the shop immediately by removing their entire goo
