Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
Beena Mahajan & Anr. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smriti Sangeeta & Ors. - Respondents
RFA Nos.262, 266 of 2018
Decided On : 20-03-2018
CPC - Regular First Appeals - Section 96 - [C.M. No.10013/2018, C.M. No.10196/2018, C.M. No.10195/2018, RFA No.262/2018, C.M. No.10012/2018, RFA No.266/2018, C.M. Nos.10194/2018, 10197/2018] - The court discussed the appeals filed against the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 30.10.2017, which decided two suits. The suits involved issues of possession, mesne profits, and ownership of a property. The court referred to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, while analyzing the legality of the documentation executed in favor of the respondent/plaintiff and the rights of the appellants/defendants. The court highlighted the importance of registered documents, consideration received, and the limitation period for challenging the documents. The court also emphasized the need for cogent and convincing evidence to prove allegations and the relevance of documentary and oral evidence in reaching a decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two suits filed by Smt. Smriti Sangeeta and Sh. Mohit Mahajan regarding the ownership and possession of a property. The suits raised issues related to the legality of documentation, possession, and mesne profits. The trial court decided in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, leading to the filing of appeals by the appellants/defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeals lacked merit and dismissed them, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The court upheld the trial court's decision in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the documentation executed in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, the transfer of property, possession, and the influence of liquor on the execution of documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of registered documents, consideration received, and the limitation period for challenging the documents. It also highlighted the need for cogent and convincing evidence to prove allegations and the relevance of documentary and oral evidence in reaching a decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial court's decision in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
C.M. No.10013/2018 (for condonation of delay) in RFA No. 262/2018
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. No.10196/2018 (exemption) in RFA No.266/2018
2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. No.10195/2018 (condonation of delay) in RFA No. 266/2018
3. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RFA No.262/2018 and C.M. No.10012/2018 (stay)
RFA No.266/2018 and C.M. Nos.10194/2018 (stay) & 10197/2018 (under Order XX Rule 6A(2) CPC)
4. These two Regular First Appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) have been filed against the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 30.10.2017. By the impugned judgment trial court has decided two suits. One suit is the suit filed by Smt. Smriti Sangeeta the respondent in RFA No.262/2018 and who is also respondent no.1 in RFA No.266/2018. This was a suit filed for possession, mesne profits etc pleading ownership of suit property in view of documentation executed in her favour by late Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan. In this suit there were two defendants being Smt. Beena Mahajan wife of late Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan as defendant no.1 and Sh. Mohit Mahajan son of late Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan as the defendant no.2. Both these defendants are appellants in RFA No.262/2018. The second suit was the suit filed by Sh. Mohit Mahajan and who is the appellant in RFA No.266/2018. In this suit there were two defendants with defendant no.1 being Smt. Smriti Sangeeta daughter of Sh. Umesh Chandra. The second defendant in this suit filed by Sh. Mohit Mahajan was Sh. Umesh Chandra, the father of Smt. Smriti Sangeeta. By this suit, Sh. Mohit Mahajan prayed for a decree of declaration and also sought reliefs of injunctions to the effect that the documentation by which his father Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan had executed for transferring rights in the suit property to Smt. Smriti Sangeeta were illegal and void and that Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan continued to remain the owner of the suit property. The suit property is flat no. 93, 1st Floor, CAT-II, Gulmohar Enclave, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi.
5.(i) For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts of RFA No.262/2018 and which is the appeal filed by Smt. Beena Mahajan and Sh. Mohit Mahajan against Smt. Smriti Sangeeta. It is noted that pleadings of both the suits and appeals are identical because the sum and substance of the case of Smt. Smriti Sangeeta is that she is the owner of the suit property and the case of Smt. Beena Mahajan and Sh. Mohit Mahajan is that Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan (husband of Smt. Beena Mahajan and father of Sh. Mohit Mahajan) had executed the documentation in favour of Smt. Smriti Sangeeta under the influence of liquor, and therefore, such transfer documents were void and therefore Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan continued to remain the owner of the suit property.
(ii) Smt. Smriti Sangeeta filed the subject suit for possession and mesne profits etc pleading that late Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan had transferred rights in the suit property in her favour in terms of the registered agreement to sell dated 10.12.2004/Ex.P-1. Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan also executed a General Power of Attorney dated 13.12.2004/Ex.P-2 in favour of Smt. Smriti Sangeeta with respect to the suit property. A possession letter was also executed in favour of Smt. Smriti Sangeeta giving possession of the suit property to Smt. Smriti Sangeeta (hereinafter for the sake of convenience referred to as ‘respondent/plaintiff’). The respondent/plaintiff in her suit further pleaded that by a rent agreement dated 21.8.2006, on the request of Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan, the suit property was leased out to Sh. Sudershan Kumar Mahajan at Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondent/plaintiff thereafter pleads that she got converted the suit
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
