Sarvinder Singh vs Vipul Tandon - 2022 Supreme(Del) 350

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Sarvinder Singh & Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Vipul Tandon - Respondent
EX.P. 95 of 2018
Decided On : 14-07-2022

Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal, Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Parmar & Ms. Ritambra Kaushik, Advocates.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI - Dispossession without due process - Decree Holders unlawfully dispossessed Objectors from property; knowledge of prior sale deeds not acted upon - Obligation to serve notice prior to dispossession emphasized. (Paras 16, 19, 49)

(B) Ownership claims - Objectors raised disputes over ownership based on earlier Sale Deeds and adverse possession - Decree Holders' counterclaim criticizes authenticity of Sale Deeds and alleged collusion with Judgment Debtor. (Paras 11, 12, 37)

Facts of the case:
The Decree Holders initiated execution proceedings without disclosing Objectors' previous ownership and dispossessed them illegally from the property known as No. 27, Rajpur Road, which they held since 1999 and 2002 through registered Sale Deeds.

Findings of Court:
Executing court finds Decree Holders acted unlawfully; Objectors are restored possession of the property.

Issues: Key issues include valid ownership based on Sale Deeds versus alleged fraudulent transfer, maintenance of status quo ante, and entitlement based on adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi: Court stresses the need for due process and adherence to procedural law in dispossession cases, ruling prior knowledge of ownership must be acknowledged, and failure to disclose and include parties leads to unlawful dispossession.

Result: Objectors granted restoration of possession.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Bansal, J.

E.A. 175/2019 (of Vikram Badhwar for placing on record additional facts), I.A. 297/ (of the LRs of Late Shri Uday Vir Viraj u/O VI R 17 of CPC) and I.A. 298/2019 (of the Shakuntala Srivastava u/O VI R 17 of CPC)

1. No opposition has been raised on behalf of the Decree Holder to the captioned applications.

2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed.

3. The additional facts pleaded in E.A. 175/2019 are taken on record.

4. As prayed for in I.A. 297/2019 and I.A. 298/2019, the request of the applicants for amendment of the prayer is allowed.

E.A. 535/2018(of the Vikram Badhwar u/O-XXI R-99 r/w R-101 and 106 of CPC), EA 165/2019(of Shakuntala Srivastava u/O-XXI R-99, 100 & 101 of CPC), EA 166/2019(of Udayan Parmar & Ors u/O-XXI R-99, 100 & 101 of CPC), E.A.1395/2021 (of the Vikram Badhwar u/S 144 of CPC), E.A. 176/2019 (of the Vikram Badhwar u/S 151 of CPC) & E.A. 177/2019 (of the Vikram Badhwar u/S 151 of CPC for status quo ante)

5. E.A. 535/2018 has been filed on behalf of the Objector/Vikram Badhwar, under Order XXI Rules 99, 101 and 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking relief of status quo ante and stay of the warrant of possession issued by the Registrar General of this Court in respect of the three floors with lawn and terrace and four servant quarters in the property bearing No. 27, Rajpur Road, Delhi-110054 (suit property).

6. E.A.1395/2021 has been filed on behalf of Objector/Vikram Badhwar, under section 144 of CPC seeking payment of mesne profits and damages for wrongful dispossession and E.A. 176/2019 has been filed on behalf of Vikram Badhwar for restraining the Decree Holders from creating third party rights in the suit property and E.A. 177/2019 has been filed on behalf of Vikram Badhwar seeking restoration of possession of the third floor of the suit property.

7. E.A. 165/2019 and E.A. 166/2019 have been filed on behalf of the Objectors/ Smt. Shakuntala Srivastava and Late Shri Udayvir Viraj through legal representatives (LRs) respectively, under Order XXI Rules 99, 100 and 101 of the CPC seeking relief of declaration that there is a valid Sale Deed in their favour and the decree is inoperative against them and restoration of possession of the two servants quarters, part of the suit property.

8. No replies to the aforesaid applications have been filed on behalf of the Decree Holders, only written submissions/additional written submissions have been filed.

Case set up by the Objector/Vikram Badhwar HUF

9. The case set up by the Objector/ Vikram Badhwar HUF is that:-

ii. The father of the Objector entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 29th August, 1993 with the mother of the Decree Holder for the purchase of the terrace of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 4,41,000/-. In terms of the said agreement, Smt. Nirmal Satyendra Singh accepted Rs.2,00,000/- as advance money for the purchase of the terrace of the suit property and a receipt was executed by her in favour of the father of the Objector. Thereafter, the possession of one room was given to the father of the Objector.

iii. The Judgment Debtor got the letters of administration in his favour in respect of the will of the mother of the Decree Holders vide judgment dated 13 August, 1997 passed by the District Judge.

iv. A Sale Deed dated 25th February, 2002 was executed by the Judgment Debtor in favour of the Objector, in respect of the terrace of the suit property, on payment of the requisite stamp duty and the balance consideration of Rs. 2,41,000/-.

v. The Objector carried out the construction on the terrace of the second floor of the suit property, which was purchased by him from the mother of the Decree Holder, and shifted