Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
Neera Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Government of India & Ors. – Respondents
RFA No. 771 of 2017
Decided On : 08-09-2017
fraud - recovery of KVPs - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 96 - [Section 96 of CPC] - The court discussed the judgment dated 18.2.2005 which held that the defendant had no title to the KVPs due to the use of a forged demand draft. The appellant's claim against defendant no.3 was not addressed, which was crucial as the appellant claimed to have been defrauded by defendant no.3.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased KVPs from defendant no.3, but the post office did not pay the maturity amount. The suit was dismissed by the trial court based on the judgment dated 18.2.2005, which held that the defendant had no title to the KVPs due to the use of a forged demand draft. The appellant did not claim relief against defendant no.3, who was the alleged culprit.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, stating that the appellant would have no title to the KVPs as the defendant had no title due to the forged demand draft. The appellant's failure to claim relief against defendant no.3 was highlighted.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the appellant to recover the amount, the validity of the judgment dated 18.2.2005, and the cause of action for the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the judgment dated 18.2.2005, which established that the defendant had no title to the KVPs due to the use of a forged demand draft. The appellant's failure to address defendant no.3 in the suit was crucial to the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 9.5.2017 dismissing the suit for recovery of Rs.4,60,000/- with interest.
2. In the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff there were four defendants. Defendant no.1 was the Government of India. Defendant no.2 was the Post Master of Lodi Road Post Office, New Delhi. The main culprit being Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain was sued as defendant no.3 in the suit but surprisingly in the suit no relief was claimed against this Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain/defendant no.3. Defendant no.4 was Central Bank of India and whose bank drafts were stolen and used for the purchase of the disputed Kisan Vikas Patras (in short KVPs) by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain/defendant no.3 and from whom the appellant/plaintiff purchased the KVPs.
3. (i) The facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint were that the appellant/plaintiff purchased KVPs from the defendant no.3/Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-, and consisting of 23 units. Appellant/plaintiff claimed that she got the KVPs transferred in her joint names with defendant no.3. It is further pleaded that when the KVPs matured on 15.4.2005, and the appellant/plaintiff became entitled to Rs.4,60,000/-, she tendered the KVPs for encashment in the month of September 2005 but since the amount was not paid by the post office hence after serving the legal notice dated 23.3.2006 the subject suit was filed.
(ii) The suit was not contested by defendant no.4/Central Bank of India, and it will be seen that this was because defendant no.4/Central Bank of India had already obtained a judgment and decree dated 18.2.2005 with respect to recovery of the amount from Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain/defendant no.3 in the present suit and who was the defendant no.1 in the suit filed by Central Bank of India. As already stated above, mysteriously and surprisingly appellant/plaintiff did not seek any relief or recovery of monies against the defendant no.3/Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain in the present suit.
(iii) Suit was contested by defendant nos.1 and 2 being the Govt. of India and the Post Office. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 as per their written statement pleaded that the suit was liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the disputes were already decided by the Court of Sh. Gurdeep Kumar, ADJ, Delhi vide judgment dated 18.2.2005 and which showed that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain had used a forged demand draft no.016736 dated 26.3.1999 for purchase of 58 KVPs of the value of Rs.5,80,000/- from Shahdara Post Office, New Delhi and this forged demand draft was one from the 1087 blank demand drafts which were stolen from Central Bank of India, District Muzaffarpur, Bihar. In the suit filed by the Central Bank of India the court had directed marking of lien of the KVPs purchased through the forged demand draft bearing number 016736 dated 26.3.1999. It was therefore pleaded that the suit be dismissed because Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain had no title to KVPs and therefore appellant/plaintiff who claims from Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain would not have title to the KVPs and hence not entitled to payments under the same.
4. After pleadings were complete, the trial court framed the following issues:-
“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.4,60,000/- along with interest against defendants no. 1 & 2 as claimed? OPP
(2) Whether the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2005 passed by the court of Sh. Gurdeep Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Delhi in suit no. 425 of 2003/2000, titled as Central Bank of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors. is collusive, null and void as alleged? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of judgment of Sh. Gurdeep Kumar, Ld. ADJ, Delhi vide order dated 18.02.2005? OPD1 & 2.
(4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
(5) Whether the proper court fees has not been paid? OPD.
(6) Relief.”
5. With regard to issue nos. 2 to 4 trial court has referred
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
