Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Arihant Jain – Appellant
Versus
Bhanwar Lal Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
RFA 343 of 2012 & CM APPL. 12565 of 2017
Decided On : 14-05-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. H.S. Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Gandhi, Mr. Alok Kothari & Mr. Ravi Kumar, Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Mr. Gauri Chaturvedi
The settlement agreement between the parties can lead to the modification of the impugned judgment/decree.
Headnote:
Bayana Receipts - Property Dispute - DDA Act, Section 29 - Summary: The court discussed the Bayana receipts related to the property dispute and the settlement terms between the parties. The decision was influenced by the settlement agreement and the provisions of the DDA Act, Section 29.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff's suit for declaration, confirmation of possession, and injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal was filed challenging the dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the restoration of the appeal and the condonation of delay. The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the court modified the impugned judgment/decree based on the settlement.
Issues: Dispute over property ownership, non-appearance of parties, delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The settlement agreement between the parties influenced the court's decision to modify the impugned judgment and decree.
Final Decision: The appeal was restored, and the settlement terms between the parties were accepted, leading to the modification of the impugned judgment/decree.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
CM APPL. 12566/2017 (delay)
1. The delay in filing of the application for restoration of appeal is condoned. The appeal is restored. Application is disposed of.
RFA 343/2012 & CM APPL. 12565/2017
2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17th September, 2011 by which the Plaintiff/Appellant’s (hereinafter, ‘Plaintiff’) suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts are that the Respondents No.1 and 2- Sh. Bhanwar Lal Sharma (hereinafter, ‘D1’) and Smt. Shakuntla Sharma (hereinafter, ‘D2’) were allotted plot no.113, Pocket-A, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi by the DDA (hereinafter ‘plot’). Subsequent to the said allotment, three Bayana receipts have been executed seeking to transfer rights in the plot.
4. Bayana receipt no.1 dated 21st September, 2004 was executed between D-1 and Sh. Harish Kumar (hereinafter ‘D-3’) whereby D-1 accepted Bayana amount of Rs.75,000/- towards sale of the plot for a total consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-.
5. The second Bayana receipt dated 24th September, 2004 was executed between D-3 and Sh. Chander Mohan Sharma (hereinafter ‘D-4’) whereby D-3 agreed to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.3,60,000/- with advance payment of Rs.75,000/-.
6. Bayana receipt no.3 was executed between D-4 and Sh. Ajit Arora (hereinafter ‘D-5’). D-4 agreed to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.3,80,000/- with Bayana payment of Rs.75,000/- having been made.
7. Bayana receipt no.4 dated 20th November, 2004 is executed between the D-5 and the Plaintiff- Sh. Arihant Jain. D-5 agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.7,51,000/- with the Bayana advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. All these four Bayana receipts have exhibited as PW-1/1, PW-1/16, PW-1/17 and PW-1/18 in the suit record.
8. The Plaintiff claimed that D-5 made the payment of two instalments to DDA and the final instalment was paid by him. Accordingly, he sought the following relief’s :
“(i) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring that the plaintiff is the purchaser of the, suit Plot No.113, Pocket A-1, measuring 60 Sq. Meters, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi, as shown in colour red in the site plan attached herewith:
(ii) pass a decree of confirmation of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby confirming that the plaintiff is in possession of Plot No.113, Pocket A-1, measuring 60 Sq. Meters, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi, as shown in colour red in the site plan attached herewith;
(iii) pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendant no.6 to execute Lease Deed or any other document pertaining to the suit Plot No. 113, Pocket A-1, measuring 60 Sq. Meters, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi, as shown in colour red in the site plan attached herewith, in favour of the plaintiff;
(iv) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants no.1 and 2, their agents, servants, associates, legal heirs, assigns, nominees and whosoever on their behalf from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit Plot No. 113, Pocket A-1, measuring 60 Sq. Meters, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi, as shown in colour red in the site plan attached herewith, either forcibly or illegally;
(v) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendant no.6 its officials, employees, etc. from executing Lease Deed or any other document pertaining to the suit Plot No. 113, Pocket A-1, measuring 60 Sq. Meters, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi, as shown in colour red in the site plan attached herewith, in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2 or any other person, except the plaintiff;
(vi) award costs of the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; and
(vii) pass any other or furth
