Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
ANUJ CHOPRA AND ORS. - Appellants
Vs.
VANEETA KHANNA AND ORS. - Respondents
RFA (OS) 117/2015 & 21/2016, C.M. APPL.26171/2015 & 8731-8732/2016
Decided On : 25-05-2016
For the Appellant :Sh. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Kartik Nagarkatti, Sh. Abhinav Malhotra, Sh. Manish Sangwan and Ms. Deeksha Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sh. B. Mohan with Sh. Gyan Sharma and Ms. Harshlata, Advocates, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Sonia. A. Menon, Advocate, for Respondent No.4.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 11 - Possession - Wrongful dispossession - Res-judicata - Possession was claimed on the basis of entitlement and wrongful dispossession - Acquisition of rights through the documents - Registered Agreement to Sell was executed - Collaboration Agreement stood as a barrier as it had effaced the previous documents had not been set aside - They attained finality - Second suit were to be based entirely on the subsequent Agreement to Sell - Omission to rely upon registered sale deed, the findings as to the ineffectiveness to the documents attained finality - Khannas could not have sought for a declaration and possession - K were precluded from setting up title or interest on the basis of registered Agreement to Sell - Findings of Single Judge with regard to res judicata did not preclude the maintainability of the second suit are erroneous - Hence, are set aside.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 48, 53A - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 5, 6, 31 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1A), 49 - Agreement to sale - Ownership - Scope of - Ks' claim for rights over the suit property in the second suit is based on a registered PoA - Whether this conferred the right to contest and initiate legal proceedings, enter into binding transactions - Second document was an Agreement to Sell on Rs.20 stamp paper - Agreement to Sell is not registered - Receipt which evidences payment of Rs. 5 lakhs - Held, findings of theSingle Judge with respect to ownership and interest in the suit property on account of K being put in possession in part performance of the Agreement to Sell are erroneous - Agreement to Sell could not have created any rights - Claim for title, based upon that document was legally unenforceable.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 48, 53A - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 5, 6, 31 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1A), 49 - Possession - Sale transaction - Specific relief - Damages - K has became owners of property after payment of full sale consideration - Execution of Agreement to Sell, GPA and SPA - Vacant physical possession of suit property was delivered to the plaintiffs - Locks were placed over the suit property - Second defendants trespassed the suit property and colluded with each other - K claims to be original owners - C claimed to have better right by virtue of being in possession pursuant to part performance of Agreement to Sell - They were bona fide purchasers without notice of previous transactions and are entitled to continue in possession as against the K - Case is set up by virtue of exercise of GPA conferred by C - A Khanna is not left with any right, title or interest - Findings of the Single Judge are erroneous - Held, K had no any legally enforceable title or interest in the suit property - Mesne profits/damages along with 9% interest - K were not entitled to any interest - Claim for possession was unenforceable - R's appeal has to succeed - Decree of Single Judge is set aside.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The appellants in these two proceedings are aggrieved by a judgment of a learned Single Judge decreeing the respondents’ suit. The appellants in RFA 117/2015 were arrayed as Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 (hereafter referred to as "Chopras"). They appeal the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge, allowing a suit for declaration and possession, filed by the first two respondents (hereafter variously "the plaintiffs" or "the Khannas"). The first defendant (“Rajiv” hereafter) is arrayed as the third respondent; the fourth respondent was the second defendant, (referred to hereafter as "Judge Chawla"). Rajiv, in RFA 21/2016, appeals the same decree, to the extent it directs him to pay mesne profits.
2. The Khannas had filed a suit before the Additional District Judge under Sections 5 and 6 of Specific Relief Act contending that in furtherance to a sale transaction with Judge Chawla, (a General Power of Attorney holder of Rajiv), they became owners of property No. 8/289, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi ("suit property") after payment of full sale consideration and execution of Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA) and Special Power of Attorney (SPA) by Judge Chawla in their favour. The vacant physical possession of suit property was, according to the suit, delivered to the plaintiffs on 12.05.2004 and after taking possession the plaintiffs had placed their locks over the suit property. It was contended that after entering into the sale transactions and handing over possession, the first and second defendants trespassed the suit property and colluded with each other along with sisters of Rajiv, to deprive the plaintiffs of the property so purchased trespassed the property. The Khannas discovered this trespass when they visited the property on 24.07.2004 and filed a suit with a claim for directing defendants to vacate the suit property and to restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. Simultaneously, a decree for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2004 was also sought, on the ground that the sale consideration has been paid to the defendants. Mesne profits @ 15,000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of the property by the defendants was sought. A decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants and their agents, family members from selling, alienating or parting with the possession of the property was made.
3. This suit [Suit No.393/2004] (hereafter “the first suit”) instituted by the Khannas was dismissed at the initial stage on an application of defendants made under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), by the Additional District Judge (ADJ), who held that the plaintiffs had not disclosed to the Court about execution of a Collaboration Agreement dated 18.05.2004 between Rajiv and the plaintiff. The plaintiffs’ statement was recorded by the learned ADJ under Order X, CPC. The plaintiffs had stated that the signatures on the Collaboration Agreement dated 18.05.2004 appeared to be his, but he was unaware how the defendant obtained his signatures on the documents. The ADJ observed that by non-disclosure and non-production of the Collaboration Agreement, the plaintiffs had tried to overreach the Court and were guilty of withholding the information of this document and thus played fraud on the Court. The plaint in the first suit was rejected.
4. Aggrieved, the Khannas appealed to this Court (RFA 631/2004). This Court considered the appeal on merits and held that Khannas had approached the trial Court with unclean hands and suppressed material and relevant facts and dismissed the appeal. The Khannas preferred a special leave petition to the Supreme Court, aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, and stated as follows:
“The petitioners herein had filed a Suit purported to be under the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act. However, in the said Suit the petiti
