2019 Supreme(Del) 1656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
Matter Of: Anupama Bansal - Appellant
Versus
Suraj Bhan Bansal And Another - Respondent
Regular First Appeal (Os) No. 46 of 2019; Civil Miscellaneous No. 21578 of 2019
Decided on : 31-05-2019

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can pass a judgment on admission when there are clear and unambiguous admissions made by the parties, and that a duly registered Cancellation Deed is a public document and can be read in evidence without requiring any oral evidence.

Headnote:

Admissions - Property Dispute - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Sections 74 and 78 of the Indian Evidence Act - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Indian Contract Act - [Admissions] - [Property Dispute] - [Order XII Rule 6 CPC, Sections 74 and 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, General Clauses Act, 1897, Indian Contract Act]

Fact of the Case:

The suit for declaration, cancellation, possession, rendition of accounts and permanent and mandatory injunctions filed by the respondents in respect of agricultural land, measuring 21 Bighas, 16 Biswas comprising of Khasra No.50/23 Min (0-7), 21 (4-16), 22 (3-16), 58/3 (0-9), 1 (4-12), 2 (5-12), 10 (2-0), 26 (0-04) situated in the revenue estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, known as Suraj Vatika, G.T. Road, Delhi (in short, 'suit property') has been decreed in their favour under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, declaring respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 (HUF) as the owner and further declaring the Sale Deed dated 24.7.2013, executed by Rakesh Bansal (husband of the appellant and son of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1) in favour of his wife, the appellant/defendant No.2, as null and void. A decree of permanent injunction has been granted against the appellant and her husband restraining them from alienating, letting out or using the suit property for any commercial or other purpose. A decree of possession has also been granted directing the appellant and her husband to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondents within four weeks. Lastly, the appellant and her husband have been directed to credit 1/3rd of the amount earned by them from the suit property, to the tune of Rs.50,73,666.67, in the account of the respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks. Additionally, the amount of rent that was deposited by the appellant and her husband in Court in terms of an order dated 30.5.2014, has also been directed to be released in favour of the respondents along with the interest accrued thereon.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant and her husband had usurped the suit property belonging to the respondent No.2(HUF) of which the respondent No.1 is the 'Karta'. The court held that during the life time of his father, the defendant No.1 could not assume the role of a 'Karta' of the HUF. It was further held that as the suit property is owned by a HUF, it could only be sold for the benefit of the family or to discharge a pious obligation or in distress and in the absence of any of the said circumstances, there was no question of the defendant No.1 selling the same in favour of his own wife.

Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership and control of the suit property, the validity of the Sale Deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of his wife, and the rights and obligations of the parties under the Indian Contract Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked Order XII Rule 6 CPC for decreeing the suit on the basis of the unambiguous admissions made by the appellant and her husband. The court also held that a duly registered Cancellation Deed is a public document and once a certified copy thereof was placed on record, it can be read in evidence, in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also found that the appellant and her husband had violated the restraint order and had used the suit property for commercial gains, thereby depriving the rightful owner of the revenue earned.

Final Decision: The impugned judgment was upheld with a modification in respect of the relief of rendition of accounts, directing the appellant to credit the entire profit earned from the suit property to the respondent No.2, within six weeks from the date of the judgment failing which the said amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum, till realization. The present appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/-, payable to the respondents within six weeks.