Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
SAVITRI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
GOPAL - Respondent
RSA 174/2014
Decided on : 01-04-2016
Mr.Sonal Sinha, Advocate.
Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Zubeda Begum, Ms.Sana Ansari and Ms.Vanessa Singh, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid and enforceable sale documents for transfer of property, as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Specific Relief Act.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Transfer of Property Act - Section 41(h), Section 54 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the validity of the sale documents under the Transfer of Property Act and the Specific Relief Act, particularly focusing on the requirement of valid and enforceable documents for transfer of property. The court also considered the implications of Section 41(h) and Section 54 of the respective acts in determining the maintainability of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought possession of a property purchased from the respondent's father, which was contested on the grounds of invalid sale documents and forcible occupation by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish ownership and possession due to invalid and unenforceable sale documents, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Issues: Validity of sale documents, entitlement to possession, maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's failure to prove valid and enforceable sale documents led to the dismissal of the suit, and the suit was not maintainable under the relevant provisions of the acts.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. Smt.Savitri Devi, the appellant/plaintiff, has put up a challenge to the judgment dated 09.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-01(East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RCA No.27/2011 whereby the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No.538/2007 whereby the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed, has been upheld and affirmed.
2. The appellant had preferred the suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction seeking a direction to the respondent/defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property, (a house), and permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant in creating any third party interest in the suit property.
3. The appellant/plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from the father of the respondent in the year 2011. Since the father of the respondent was not being looked after well, he was permitted to stay in the suit property where he stayed till his death on 03.02.2002. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant/plaintiff claimed that the respondent/defendant made forcible occupation of the remaining portion of the suit property by ousting a tenant. The property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- vide General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, receipt, affidavit and registered Will dated 23.01.2001. It was asserted in the plaint that the possession was handed over by the father of the respondent/defendant on the same day of the purchase. The aforesaid suit was contested by the respondent/defendant primarily on the ground that the documents conveying the property to the appellant/plaintiff was executed by the father of the respondent in a state of drunken stupor and the father of the respondent had earlier lodged a complaint before the police regarding the same. It was further averred in the written statement that the suit property always remained in the possession of the father of the respondent/defendant wherein the respondent/defendant stayed with his family during the life time of his father and thereafter. A counter claim was also lodged by the respondent/defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant/plaintiff from taking possession from the respondent/defendant as also from creating any third party rights in the suit property.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court, vide order dated 28.11.2002 framed the following issues:
i. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
ii. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction prayed for? OPP
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of permanent injunction prayed for? OPP
v. Whether the licence to use the suit property given by the plaintiff to Sh. Ram Bharose stood expired on his death. If so, its effect? OPP
vi. Whether the father of defendant Sh. Ram Bharose transferred his right, title or interest in the suit property for consideration in favour of the plaintiff, if so its effect? OPP
vii. Whether the suit is barred by Section 41 (h) of S.R. Act? OPD
viii. Whether the suit of plaintiff is hit by section 54 of Transfer of Property Act? OPD
ix. Whether the suit of plaintiff is maintainable in its present form? OPD
x. Relief.
5. The appellant/plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 before the Trial Court and deposed that after the registration of the property, she had gone to the property for taking possession along with her husband. The possession of one room, kitchen and bathroom and toilet of the property was taken. The other part of the suit property could not be taken possession of as one Virender Tyagi was residing there as a tenant. She denied the suggestion that her husband was a property dealer and had been running his business under the name and style of Laxmi Property Dealer at Vikas Marg
