The main legal point established is that the limitation period for challenging a release deed is crucial, and certain claims fall under the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts under the Delhi Land Reforms Act.

CS (OS) 2670/2014

1. Present suit has been filed by plaintiff seeking cancellation of release deed dated 13.11.2006 purported to have been executed by him in favour of defendant No. 2. The averments in the plaint disclose that plaintiff was co-owner and in actual cultivatory possession of 2/9th share in agricultural land in Khasra No. 852 (4-16) situated in revenue estate of Village Rajokari, New Delhi. Defendant No. 2 offered to purchase this portion of the land of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1 crore and an amount of Rs. 30 lacs was given as advance and the balance amount was agreed to be paid by the defendant within 12 months. Parties went to the office of Sub-registrar where a sum of Rs. 30 lacs was tendered by way of cheque dated 13.11.2006 to the plaintiff as the earnest money. The plaintiff was an illiterate person; he was not well versed in the English language. He signed the agreement which was duly registered. However the plaint discloses that the plaintiff was not aware of the contents of the documents and he was misled into believing that it was only a deed of agreement but it was actually a release deed. He learnt about this fact on 10:9.2013 when he appeared before the Tehsildar. He was informed that the suit land was mutated. He had in fact given his objection to the Registrar. Prayer made in the plaint is that the release deed is liable to be set aside. The second objection which has been taken by the plaintiff is about the mutation of the land; submission being that this suit is barred by virtue of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and such a transaction is even otherwise void ab initio.

2. Written statement was filed by defendants objecting to the prayers made in the plaint. Submission being that the plaint is liable to be dismissed. Replication was also filed.

3. The plaintiff has appeared in person. His statement under Order 10 of the CPC has been recorded separately.

4. Learned Counsel for defendants has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the plaintiff which was recorded before the Tehsildar on 10.9.2013. This is a document in Hindi which has been recorded of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff has admitted that on 13.11.2006 he had entered into a release deed which was registered with the Sub-registrar. As pointed out by learned Counsel for the defendants, the averments in the plaint however in contradiction to the documentary evidence which is the document dated 13.11.2006 as also the statement of plaintiff which has been recorded on oath in the Court today.

5. Averments contained in paras 4 & 5 of plaint have been perused. In this part of the plaint, it has been clearly stated that some thumb impression and signatures of the plaintiff were obtained on some typed papers which the plaintiff could not understand as he was not well versed in the English language. His averment discloses that it was only a deed of agreement which was registered. It was reiterated that the contents of the same were not known to him. The statement of plaintiff recorded on 10.9.2013 before the Tehsildar is however contrary. In this statement, the plaintiff admits that he had entered into this release deed on 13.11.2006. Even before this Court, he admitted that he had entered into this document dated 13.11.2006 which was signed by him and registered. His further submission is that he has to take the balance amount of Rs. 70 lacs out of the total amount of Rs. 1 crore for which the deed was struck.

6. Admittedly, there is no document in support of this plea that the transaction was for Rs. 1 crore. The document dated 13.11.2006 speaks of a sale consideration of Rs. 30 lacs, which had admittedly been paid to the plaintiff on the same date by way of a cheque. Possession of land had also been handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant. All this is recorded in the aforenoted document.

7. The plaintiff appears to be taking contrary and confusing pleas. In the plaint, he discloses that he was not aware of