The main legal point established in the judgment is that sale deeds executed in violation of injunction orders and lacking legal sanctity can be declared null and void, and the issue of limitation can be conclusively decided against the defendants.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. - The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the six sale deeds, all dated 30th May, 1997, executed by late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants no. 9 to 11, in favour of the defendants no.3 to 8, in respect of the property, being No. 21, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi (suit property), are null and void. Consequential relief of cancellation of the said sale deeds from the record of the concerned Sub-Registrar is also sought.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT SUIT

2. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), being I.A. 23802/2015, was filed on behalf of the defendants no. 3 to 8 on the ground that the plaint is time barred and it does not disclose any cause of action. I.A. 7939/2016 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. Vide order dated 28th April, 2017, this Court allowed I.A. 7939/2016 and dismissed I.A. 23802/2015. An appeal filed against the aforesaid order, being FAO(OS) 177/2017, was dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 30th May, 2017. On 14th November, 2017, following issues were framed in the suit:

i. Whether late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna (now represented through defendant nos. 9 to 11) executed a valid sale deed dated 30th May, 1997 in favour of defendant no. 3 to 8 respectively? OPP

ii. Relief.

3. It was further noted that the parties do not wish to lead evidence in the matter and the matter could be adjudicated on the basis of the documents on record. Accordingly, the matter was put up for final hearing.

4. Submissions in the matter were heard on 11th July, 2022, 20th July, 2022 and 27th July, 2022, and judgment was reserved on 27th July, 2022. Parties have filed written submissions in support of their oral submissions.

PLEADINGS IN THE AMENDED PLAINT

5. In the amended plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that:

i. Late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna was the owner of the suit property.

ii. Late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 13th September, 1988 (Agreement to Sell) with the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.

iii. Since late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a suit, being CS(OS) 425/1993, before this Court for specific performance, damages and injunction.

iv. In the said suit, vide order dated 18th February, 1993, this Court restrained the defendants therein from creating third party rights in respect of the suit property. The aforesaid order was confirmed on 31st January, 2000.

v. On 19th February, 1997, late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna executed six agreements to sell in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendants no. 3 to 8 for a total consideration of Rs.2,88,00,000/-.

vi. Subsequently, six registered sale deeds were executed by late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna in favour of the defendants no. 3 to 8 on 30th May, 1997.

vii. The aforesaid sale deeds were executed by late Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna despite there being an injunction order passed by this Court.

viii. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Khanna died on 12th January, 2002, leaving behind his wife and two daughters as his legal representatives, who are the defendants no. 9 to 11 in the present suit.

ix. In 2008, the defendants no. 3 to 8 filed an application, being I.A. 1861/2008, under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment as defendants in CS(OS) 425/1993.

x. The said application was dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court on 26th May, 2008.

xi. The aforesaid order by the Single Judge was challenged by way of an appeal, being FAO(OS) 324/2008, filed by the defendants no. 3 to 8. The said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20th February, 2009.

xii. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred against the said order of the Division Bench, being SLP(C) No. 11501/2009, was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 21st August, 2012. Review against the said