Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Mahender Kehar - Appellant
Versus
Skyland Builders Pvt Ltd and Others - Respondent
Civil Suit (OS) No. 175 of 2019; Interlocutory Application No. 4616 of 2019
Decided On : 29-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Jaspreet Singh Rai, Adv.
The plaintiff cannot seek relief for his own illegal actions, and the court will not assist a party who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 59 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 59 - Sale Deed - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 17, Section 16 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 92 - Public Policy - Legal Maxims - Summary: The court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking to cancel a Sale Deed executed in favor of the defendants, citing fraud and illegalities. The court found that the plaintiff's claim of being defrauded was not tenable as he was aware of the legal implications and ongoing litigations related to the property. The court also emphasized the principles of public policy and legal maxims, stating that the plaintiff cannot seek relief for his own illegal actions. The court further highlighted the provisions of the Contract Act and Evidence Act, emphasizing that the plaintiff cannot plead and prove contrary to the terms of the registered Sale Deed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking to cancel a Sale Deed executed in favor of the defendants, claiming fraud and illegalities. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants lured him into executing the Sale Deed and failed to fulfill the payment terms.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim of being defrauded was not tenable as he was aware of the legal implications and ongoing litigations related to the property. The court also emphasized the principles of public policy and legal maxims, stating that the plaintiff cannot seek relief for his own illegal actions.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the alleged fraud and illegalities in the execution of the Sale Deed, the plaintiff's awareness of the legal implications, and the applicability of legal principles related to public policy and legal maxims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's awareness of the legal implications and ongoing litigations related to the property, as well as the principles of public policy and legal maxims, which precluded the plaintiff from seeking relief for his own illegal actions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, emphasizing that it was an abuse of the process of the Court and did not merit admission.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J,
1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against (i) Skyland Builders Pvt. Ltd; (ii) Lalit Mohan Madhan; (iii) Prateek Madhan; (iv) Sunil Kumar; and, (v) Sunrise Constructions, pleading that:-
(i) the father of the plaintiff late Shri Desh Raj Kehar, during his lifetime had purchased and acquired a plot of land ad measuring 1083 sq. yds. bearing Municipal No.D-8, New Delhi South Extension (NDSE), Part-II, New Delhi vide Sale Deed dated 16th February, 1957;
(ii) the said Shri Desh Raj Kehar died on 12th April, 1967 leaving behind his wife Smt. Durga Devi Kehar and three sons including the plaintiff and four daughters;
(iii) Shri Desh Raj Kehar had executed a Will dated 7th July, 1966 creating life interest in the aforesaid property in favour of his wife Smt. Durga Devi Kehar for her lifetime and thereafter the property was to devolve on all his children;
(iv) one of the sons of Shri Desh Raj Kehar died in July, 1972; he was unmarried and issueless;
(v) the wife of Shri Desh Raj Kehar i.e. mother of the plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney in respect of the aforesaid property in favour of one of her daughters and who, acting thereunder sold a part of the land ad measuring 327 sq. yds. out of the total land ad measuring 1083 sq. yds. to Vidhata Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.;
(vi) the mother of the plaintiff died on 3rd March, 1993 leaving a Will dated 4th February, 1993 bequeathing the property aforesaid exclusively in favour of the plaintiff;
(vii) relying upon the Will aforesaid of his mother, the plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 27th August, 1999 with one Virender Bhatnagar;
(viii) in the year 2004, disputes arose between the plaintiff and his siblings with respect to the said property and the said disputes were resolved and a settlement was arrived at whereunder it was agreed that the plaintiff and each of his four surviving siblings namely (a) Dr. Prem Chand Kehar; (b) Ms. Swarn Kehar Kapur; (c) Dr. Ms. Ajit Murti; and, (d) Ms. Veena Wahi would be entitled to 1/5th undivided share in the property and a Declaration-cum-Undertaking dated 4th May, 2004 was executed;
(ix) on 22nd February, 2006, a joint application was also filed by the plaintiff and his four siblings aforesaid, for mutation of the property in their joint names and in the year 2006 itself the property so stood mutated;
(x) Dr. Ms. Ajit Murti, sister of the plaintiff, Dr. Prem Chand Kehar, brother of the plaintiff and the heirs of Ms. Swarn Kehar Kapur, sister of the plaintiff, vide Sale Deeds dated 28th April, 2006, 28th April, 2006 and 25th May, 2006 respectively sold their respective 1/5th share in the property to defendant no.4 Sunil Kumar;
(xi) Smt. Veena Wahi, sister of the plaintiff, on 18th September, 2007 executed an Agreement to Sell with respect to her 1/5th share in favour of defendant no.5 Sunrise Constructions, of which defendant no.4 is one of the partners;
(xii) defendant no.5 Sunrise Constructions filed CS(OS) No.154/2008 for specific performance of the said Agreement to Sell against the said Smt. Veena Wahi and which suit was decreed on 12th May, 2009 and RFA(OS) No.63/2009 against the said judgment and decree was also disposed of and a Sale Deed executed by Smt. Veena Wahi in favour of defendant no.5 Sunrise Constructions;
(xiii) M/s. AKN Developers Pvt. Ltd., claiming to be the nominee of Virender Bhatnagar aforesaid, filed CS(OS) No.1181/2005 for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 27th August, 1999 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the said Virender Bhatnagar; the plaintiff contested the said suit, contending that though the plaintiff had entered into the Agreement to Sell as sole owner of the property but had only 20% share in the property under the Family Settlement with his siblings;
(xiv) one Praveen Jain filed CS(OS) No.1223/2009 for specific performance of a Receipt-cum-Agreement dated 26th July, 2008 purported to be executed by the plaintiff for sale of his 1/5th undivide
