IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Manmohan Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Shikha Sen & Ors – Respondents
RFA No. 1017 of 2016 & CM APPL.47525 of 2016 (Stay)
Decided On : 08-05-2018
Fraud - Property Dispute - Registration Act, 1908, Limitation Act, 1963 - The judgment discusses the fraudulent sale of a property in Delhi, involving multiple transactions and the failure of the registration system to prevent such occurrences. The court found that the initial agreement to sell between the deceased and the property owners was genuine and within the limitation period. The subsequent sale deed in favor of the appellant was declared null and void. The court directed the appellant to hand over possession of the property to the deceased's legal heirs and ordered the owners to execute the sale deed in their favor. The court also highlighted the need for a mechanism to prevent multiple registrations for the same property.
Fact of the Case:
Late Col. S. R. Sen approached a property dealer to find a suitable house property. The dealer identified a property owned by legal heirs of the original owner. After various transactions and the death of Col. Sen, a dispute arose regarding the ownership of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial agreement to sell was genuine and within the limitation period. The subsequent sale deed in favor of the appellant was declared null and void. The court directed the appellant to hand over possession of the property to the deceased's legal heirs and ordered the owners to execute the sale deed in their favor.
Issues: The issues included the genuineness of the initial agreement to sell, the validity of the subsequent sale deed, the limitation period for filing the suit, and the rights of the deceased's legal heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the initial agreement to sell was genuine and within the limitation period. The subsequent sale deed in favor of the appellant was declared null and void. The court directed the appellant to hand over possession of the property to the deceased's legal heirs and ordered the owners to execute the sale deed in their favor.
Final Decision: The court directed the appellant to hand over possession of the property to the deceased's legal heirs and ordered the owners to execute the sale deed in their favor. The decree of permanent injunction and declaration granted by the Trial Court was upheld.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. Late Col. S. R. Sen, with the hope of acquiring a property in the South Delhi colony of Chittaranjan Park approached Shri Ratan Dass a local property dealer in December 2000 to find a suitable house property. Shri Ratan Dass identified G-1397, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi-19 (hereinafter the ‘suit property’) owned by Shri Partho Biswas, Shri Prithwis Biswas, Shri Prathano Biswas and Shri Uma Shankar Khan (hereinafter referred to as ‘owners’), who were legal heirs of the original owner late Smt. Kamalini Biswas. She had expired on 20th February, 1990 and her property devolved upon her four legal heirs impleaded as Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit.
2. When the property was identified for purchase by Col. Sen, the mutation in the name of the owners had not yet been effected. Col. Sen had agreed that he would bear the expenses for getting the property mutated in favour of the owners from the L&DO. Accordingly, Shri Ratan Dass applied on behalf of Col. Sen to the L&DO for mutation of the property. The charges for the mutation and towards unearned increase, to the tune of Rs.6,16,016/-, were paid by Col. Sen by cheque dated 18th May, 2001 (Mark A). The L&DO issued the mutation letter dated 18th September, 2001 (Ex PW5/4) evidencing the mutation done in favour of the owners. Shri Ratan Dass was acting on behalf of Col. Sen in respect of the suit property. All the original documents of the suit property were in the custody of Shri Ratan Dass who also held a General Power of Attorney (hereinafter ‘GPA’) dated 9th November, 2001 from the owners (EX PW 6/3).
3. On 26th December, 2001 (EX PW 7/1) after the mutation was done in favour of the owners, an agreement to sell was entered into between the owners and Col. Sen. The said agreement to sell was signed by Col. Sen as the purchaser and by Shri Prithwis Biswas (‘Defendant No.2’), who held a Power of Attorney on behalf of other owners. The witnesses to this agreement were Shri. Ratan Dass and Shri. Atul Wig. The said agreement to sell was registered with the Sub Registrar-V near the INA market as document no.10563, Book No.I, Vol.2641 at pages 93 to 102. The stamp duty for the said agreement to the tune of Rs.86,400/- was also paid.
4. As per the agreement to sell, the total consideration payable was Rs.12,00,000/- out of which Rs.6,16,336/- and Rs.2,91,833/- were paid to the L&DO. and the owners respectively. The former amount was paid to the L&DO by Col. Sen on behalf of the owners and the latter amount was paid by cheque to the four owners. Thus, out of sum of Rs.12,00,000/- a total of Rs.9,08,169/- stood paid which constituted more than 75% of the sale consideration. At the time of the execution of the agreement to sell, the original registered GPA held by Shri Ratan Dass was surrendered by him to Col. Sen. Even the GPA held by Shri Prithwis Biswas dated 14th December, 2001 on behalf of other owners was surrendered in original by Shri Ratan Dass to Col. Sen after execution of the agreement. Upon the request by Shri Ratan Dass on 9th August, 2003, the original GPA in favour of Shri Ratan Dass was handed back to him as he claimed that the same was required in order to prepare a fresh Power of Attorney to deal with the L&DO. Col. Sen, believing the representation of Shri Ratan Dass, handed over the GPA on 9th August, 2003 on the condition that it would be returned to him within a week’s time i.e. by 15th August, 2003. This is clear from a reading of the ‘Receipt’ Ex. PW6/4 which reads as under:
“Receipt
Received General Power of Attorney in original pertaining to (1) Partho Biswas (2) Pratanu Biswas (3) Uma Shankar Khan appointing Prithwis Biswas as true and lawful general attorney from Col Sudhir Raja Sen of F-1119, C.R. Park (1st Floor) by me i.e. Sh. Ratan Dass of 1780, Chittaranjan Park, ND-1 on 9th August 03 which would be returned in original as soo
Subhas Chander Kathuria v. Umed Singh & Anr.
Ravinder Nath Sahni v. Poddar Construction Co. Private Ltd. & Anr.
N.P. Thirugnanam(dead) by Lrs. V. Dr.R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors.
R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesarswami & V.P. Temple & Anr.
S. Brahmanand and Ors. v. K.R. Muthugopal (Dead) and Ors.
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.