Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Rohit Rajpal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Ankita Suri & Ors. – Respondents
RFA 224 of 2017 & CM No. 41433 of 2017
Decided On : 23-05-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajan Mukherjee and Mr. S. Bhowmick
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Kumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a registered document is presumed to be valid, and the onus of proof lies on the party seeking to rebut this presumption. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of timely legal action and the inapplicability of certain legal provisions in specific cases.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - Sale Deed, Lease Deed - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Negotiable Instrument Act - [Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act]
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking rectification of a sale deed, claiming it was actually a mortgage deed. They alleged that their brother had hidden facts from them and that the sale deed was not an actual sale deed but a mortgage deed. The Defendants argued that the sale deed was valid and that the Plaintiffs were aware of the lease deed and the proceedings arising from it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed was valid and rejected the suit for rectification, holding that the Plaintiffs were aware of the lease deed and the proceedings arising from it. The court also held that the suit was barred by limitation and that Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not apply in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the keys of the property were ordered to be handed over to the Defendants.
Issues: The main issues were whether the sale deed should be rectified, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed was valid and that the suit was barred by limitation. It also found that Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not apply in this case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the keys of the property were ordered to be handed over to the Defendants.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. Sh. Rohit Rajpal and Sh. Rahul Rajpal (‘Plaintiffs’) filed a suit against their brother Sh. Rajesh Rajpal in respect of property bearing no. 36C, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 (hereinafter, ‘suit property’). Smt. Ankita Suri and Smt. Kritika Suri are cousins who were impleaded as Defendants No.1 and 2.
2. The suit property was in the joint ownership of the 3 brothers – Plaintiffs No.1 and 2, and Defendant No.3. Originally, this property was measuring 343 sq. yd, however, by devolution amongst several members of the larger family, 100 sq. yds of the suit property which was numbered as 36C, being part of a plot 36AB, Malviya Nagar, fell into the share of the three brothers. They entered into a collaboration agreement which is not the subject matter of this case. However, under the said collaboration agreement, the First Floor and Second Floor of 36C, was given by the builder to the Plaintiffs. They were in joint possession of the entire First and Second Floor.
3. Due to financial distress, a loan of Rs.27 lakhs was taken from Defendants No.1 and 2, who were related to the three brothers. It is the case of the Plaintiffs, that they had mortgaged the property, i.e., the First Floor and the Second Floor. However, instead of a mortgage deed, a sale deed was executed dated 24th August, 2011. The same was registered with the Sub-Registrar’s office. Thereafter, however, a lease deed was executed on 24th May, 2013 between Sh. Rajesh Rajpal and Smt. Ankita Suri. The said lease deed is a registered lease deed.
4. Sale deed dated 24th August, 2011 and lease deed dated 24th May, 2013 are relevant for the decision in the present appeal.
Lease deed dated 24th May, 2013 and the proceedings there under:
5. The three brothers, after the execution of the sale deed dated 24th August, 2011, continued to live in the property and did not hand over possession, as the Plaintiffs were to pay monthly instalments of Rs. 50, 000/- to Defendants 1 & 2. However, the two brothers Sh. Rohit Rajpal and Sh. Rahul Rajpal, stated that the dealings with the Defendants were being handled by Sh. Rajesh Rajpal to whom they would pay Rs. 35,500/- per month, as their share of the monthly amount of Rs.50,000/-, for further payment to Defendants No.1 and 2.
6. It is their case that they were not aware of the lease deed dated 24th May, 2013 entered into between Sh. Rajesh Rajpal and Smt. Ankita Suri. The registered lease deed dated 24th May, 2013, between Sh. Rajesh Rajpal and Smt. Ankita Suri was terminated due to non-payment of rent. A suit for possession was filed by Smt. Ankita Suri and Smt. Kritika Suri against Sh. Rajesh Rajpal, along with a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
7. In the said suit for possession, the main defence was that the property was in fact not taken on rent, but the amount of Rs. 27 lakhs was in fact a loan and the sale deed was only a security document. On 24th April, 2014, a judgment and decree were passed against Sh. Rajesh Rajpal, who admitted the ownership of Smt. Ankita Suri and Smt. Kritika Suri. He gave an undertaking that he would vacate the suit property coupled with the undertaking that the rent would be paid on time. A fresh lease deed was executed between Sh. Rajesh Rajpal and Smt. Ankita Suri and Smt. Kritika Suri. Sh. Rajesh Rajpal again defaulted which resulted in the filing of an execution petition before the Trial Court. In the said execution petition, objections were filed by Sh. Rohit Rajpal and Sh. Rahul Rajpal that they were completely ignorant of the consent decree dated 24th April, 2014. They further took the plea that the sale deed was in fact a mortgage deed. These objections were dismissed, and the order of dismissal was treated as a decree in terms of Order XXI Rule 103 read with Section 47 of the CPC. A review preferred against the order of execution was dismissed.
8. On 2nd December, 2016, the subject suit for rectification of the sale deed came to be filed. Par
