IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Saroj Bala - Plaintiff
Versus
Bimla Khatri & Ors. - Defendants
Cs(Os) 491 of 2016
Decided On : 19-03-2020
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 53A - AGREEMENT TO SELL - PART PERFORMANCE - POSSESSION - TRANSFEROR BARRED FROM ENFORCING RIGHTS - WILL - INTESTACY - SUCCESSION - OWNERSHIP - MESNE PROFITS - EXEMPLARY COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff instituted a suit against four defendants, including the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), claiming ownership and possession of a plot allotted to her husband by DDA. The defendants claimed that the husband had agreed to sell the property to defendant no.2, who in turn sold it to defendant no.1. The plaintiff denied the execution of the sale agreement and will by her husband and claimed that the documents were forged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband had indeed executed the sale agreement, will, and special power of attorney in favor of defendant no.2. The court also found that defendant no.2 had taken possession of the property and had performed her part of the contract. The court held that the plaintiff, as the heir of the transferor, was barred from enforcing any rights against the transferee and persons claiming under her, including defendant no.1, under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband of the plaintiff had agreed to sell the property to defendant no.2 and had executed the necessary documents? 2. Whether defendant no.2 had executed the necessary documents in favor of defendant no.1? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to any mesne profits with respect to the property?
Ratio Decidendi: Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act bars the transferor and persons claiming under him from enforcing any rights against the transferee and persons claiming under him, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract, where the transferee has taken possession of the property or continued in possession in part performance of the contract and has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs payable by the plaintiff to defendant no.1, assessed at Rs.1,50,000/-.
JUDGMENT :
1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the four defendants, namely (a) Bimla Khatri, (b) Pooja Bhoot, (c) Jitender Kumar and (d) Delhi Development Authority (DDA), pleading that (i) Plot No.14-G, Block-8A, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 85.6 sq.yds. (subject property) was allotted vide letter dated 23rd November, 2005 by the defendant no.4 DDA to Suraj Prakash, husband of the plaintiff; (ii) the said Suraj Prakash, on 23rd December, 2005 requested the defendant no.4 DDA to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) for construction on the subject property and defendant no.4 DDA vide letter dated 13th April, 2009 granted sanction in respect of the building plan, electricity connection, water connection, etc. for the subject property; (iii) the said Suraj Prakash died on 5th September, 2012 and the defendant no4 DDA vide its letter dated 26th August, 2014 transferred/mutated the subject property in the name of the plaintiff; (iv) the plaintiff applied to defendant no.4 DDA for extension of time for raising construction on the subject property and deposited the requisite charges therefor; (v) on 16th August, 2015, the plaintiff made a complaint to the police, of some persons raising illegal construction on the subject property and soon thereafter filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, impleading defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri as a party thereto, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri from raising any unauthorized construction on the subject property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction carried out on the subject property; (vi) the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri, in the said suit produced Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney, both dated 29th October, 2007 and Will dated 25th October, 2007, purportedly executed by Suraj Prakash in favour of defendant no.2 Pooja Bhoot, transferring his rights in the subject property in favour of defendant no.2 Pooja Bhoot for a sale consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs paid and received in cash; (vii) that the value of the subject property as per the circle rate of the relevant area/category at that time was Rs.19,33,000/-, though the market rate was Rs.85 lakhs; (viii) the Agreement to Sell for Rs.4 lakhs, purportedly executed by the husband of the plaintiff, was thus a sham; (ix) the plaintiff, as wife of Suraj Prakash, would have known of the Agreement to Sell if any entered into by him; (x) the aforesaid documents were witnessed by defendant no.3 Jitender Kumar and for which reason he has also been impleaded as a party; (xi) it was further the plea of defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri in the suit aforesaid that defendant no.2 Pooja Bhoot, vide Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, etc. all dated 5th February, 2010 had assigned the rights in the subject property in favour of the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri herein; (xii) the plaintiff withdrew the said suit with liberty to sue afresh; (xiii) that Suraj Prakash, under the terms of allotment of the subject property by the defendant no.4 DDA, could not have sold or transferred the same without prior permission of the defendant no.4 DDA and which was never applied for or granted; (xiv) that the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, etc., relied upon by the defendant no.1 Bimla Khatri, do not confer any title in the subject property to her or to defendant no.2 Pooja Bhoot; and, (xv) that as per the records of DDA, the rights in the subject property are of the plaintiff.
2. On the aforesaid pleas, relief’s of (i) declaration as null and void of the Agreement to Sell dated 29th October, 2007, Will dated 25th October, 2007 and Special Power of Attorney dated 29th October, 2007; (ii) declaration as null and void of Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, possession letter, receipt, Will, as well as affidavit, all dated 5th February, 2010; (iii) declaration of the ownership of th
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.