Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Sanjeev Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Developmentauthority & Ors. – Respondents
RFA No. 301 of 2018
Decided On : 04-04-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocate for Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act to property disputes and the consequences of failing to challenge documents within the limitation period.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Property Dispute - Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act - Section 27 of the Limitation Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit seeking cancellation of a Conveyance Deed executed in 1995, claiming it was obtained by fraud. The court found that the suit was time-barred as the appellant's father did not challenge the documents executed in 1989 within the limitation period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was malicious and dishonest, and dismissed it with costs. It imposed additional costs for abusing the process of law and recommended pursuing a complaint against the appellant for initiating false litigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit seeking cancellation of the Conveyance Deed was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was time-barred as the appellant's father failed to challenge the documents executed in 1989 within the limitation period, and the appellant's claim lacked merit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the court recommended pursuing a complaint against the appellant for initiating false litigation.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
CM No. 12687/2018(Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 12689/2018 (delay in filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 12688/2018 (delay in re-filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RFA No. 301/2018
1. This Regular 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 20.5.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff as being barred by time. Appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit for declaration that the Conveyance Deed dated 13.7.1995 executed by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in favour of Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant nos. 2 and 4 in the suit, be declared as null and void as having been obtained by fraud. The suit property, and which was the subject matter of the Conveyance Deed executed by DDA, is B-7/4, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi.
2. The facts of the case are that the suit property was owned by the father of the appellant/plaintiff one Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta. Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta admittedly executed an Agreement to Sell dated 10.7.1989 in favour of Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa the grandfather of the respondent nos. 2 and 4/defendant nos. 2 and 4. A registered Will dated 11.7.1989 was also executed by Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta in favour of Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa the grandfather of respondent nos. 2 and 4/defendant nos. 2 and 4. The father of the appellant/plaintiff had also executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 19.7.1989 in favour of the respondent no.3/defendant no.3/Sh. Kulbir Singh Pahwa, and which GPA is part and parcel of documentation of transfer of rights in the suit property by Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta in favour of Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa. The total sale consideration payable by Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa to Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta under the documentation dated 10.7.1989/11.7.1989/19.7.1989 was a sum of Rs.60 lacs and out of this total amount admittedly Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta has received a sum of Rs.58,50,000/-. Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta also delivered actual physical possession of the suit property in favour of Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa on execution of the aforesaid documents. Rights of Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa therefore under the aforesaid documentation were secured both by the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides that a General Power of Attorney given for consideration becomes irrevocable.
3. Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta, the father of the appellant/plaintiff claimed that Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa did not pay the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and therefore, Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta executed registered Cancellation Deeds dated 4.1.1994 and 6.1.1994 cancelling the Will and General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa and the respondent no.3/defendant no.3, and the factum of cancellation was informed by Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta to Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa as also the respondent no. 3/defendant no.3.
4. DDA was also accordingly informed by Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta vide his letter dated 24.1.1994 and which was received by the DDA on 27.1.1994.
5. DDA executed the registered Conveyance Deed dated 13.7.1995 in favour of Sh. Hans Raj Pahwa through his attorney being Sh. Kulbir Singh Pahwa/respondent no.3/defendant no.3. It is this Conveyance Deed which the appellant/plaintiff seeks cancellation by virtue of the present suit pleading that after his father Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta died in the year 2009, and on going through the personal papers of Sh. Prem Prakash Gupta, the appellant/plaintiff found t
