Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
MANJU DEVI - Appellant
Versus
PREMJIT KAUR - Respondent
RFA No.1026 of 2017
Decided on : 13-12-2017
Delay - Civil Procedure - Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - [Section 96 of CPC] - The court allowed the appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, filed by the defendant, impugning the judgment and decree of the trial court. The suit was for recovery of a loan amount paid by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant. The court found in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, holding that the agreement signed by the appellant/defendant in blank cannot be believed, and the respondent/plaintiff need not prove her capacity once the document is found to have been signed by the appellant/defendant. The possession slip, a document of title, was also found to be in possession of the respondent/plaintiff, supporting the genuineness of the agreement. The appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a loan amount paid to the appellant/defendant for purchasing a property. The appellant/defendant contested the suit, claiming that no money was contributed by the respondent/plaintiff and that the receipt was forged and fabricated.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, holding that the agreement signed by the appellant/defendant in blank cannot be believed, and the possession slip, a document of title, was found to be in possession of the respondent/plaintiff, supporting the genuineness of the agreement.
Issues: The issues included whether the suit was without cause of action, whether the suit was barred by provisions of the Specific Relief Act, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of the loan amount and interest, among others.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the agreement signed by the appellant/defendant in blank cannot be believed, and the respondent/plaintiff need not prove her capacity once the document is found to have been signed by the appellant/defendant. The possession slip, a document of title, was also found to be in possession of the respondent/plaintiff, supporting the genuineness of the agreement.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
C.M. Appl. No. 44438/2017 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. Appl. No. 44435/2017 and 44437/2017 (for delays)
These are applications seeking condonation of delay of 781 days in filing the appeal and 28 days in filing the appeal.
Though there is no reason to condone the huge delay because the only ground for seeking condonation that the counsel did not file the appeal is not believable, yet, since the appellant has been heard on merits of the appeal, hence only delay is condoned.
C.Ms. stand disposed of.
RFA No.1026/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 44436/2017 (for stay)
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 7.7.2015 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-along with interest at 9% per annum.
2. The facts of the case pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff were that the appellant/defendant approached the respondent/plaintiff that the owner of a property bearing no. C-7/492 admeasuring 25 sq. yards, J.J. Colony, Sultanpuri, Delhi was in urgent need of the money and hence wanted to sell this property. Respondent/plaintiff was having good relation with the appellant/defendant and therefore respondent/plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-to the appellant/defendant as a loan towards an investment for purchase of the property for a total price of Rs.7,40,000/-. The balance amount of Rs.1,40,000/-for purchase of the property was to be contributed by the appellant/defendant. It was agreed between the parties that when this property will be sold the profits thereof will be shared with 2/3rd share of the profits going to the respondent/plaintiff and 1/3rd share of the profits going to appellant/defendant. Appellant/defendant is also said to have executed a receipt dated 28.1.2008 Ex.PW1/1 in this regard. As the appellant/defendant sold the property but did not return the loan amount to the respondent/plaintiff nor paid the respondent/plaintiff the share of profits, therefore, the subject suit came to be filed for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/-paid by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant.
3. Appellant/defendant contested the suit and pleaded that no moneys were contributed by the respondent/plaintiff towards purchase of the subject property. Appellant/defendant claimed to have purchased the property by getting financial help from her family members. It was further pleaded by the appellant/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff had taken signatures of the appellant/defendant on blank papers for police verification as a tenant and therefore the receipt dated 28.1.2008 was pleaded to be forged and fabricated. Appellant/defendant pleads to have signed PW1/1 bonafidely and also put her thumb impression because it is pleaded that appellant/defendant had faith in the respondent/plaintiff who was her landlady. Appellant/defendant pleaded that she was a tenant of the respondent/plaintiff and since the appellant/defendant purchased the subject property the respondent/plaintiff seemed to have developed some grudge. The suit was hence prayed to be dismissed.
4. After pleadings were complete the trial court framed issues and parties led evidence. These aspects are noted in paras 5 to 7 of the impugned judgment and these paras read as under:-
“5. On 11.09.2009, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD
2. Whether the suit is barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 6 lacs? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest on the suit amount, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property? OPP
6. Relief.
6. Ms. Premjeet Kau
AI
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
