The validity of a Sale Deed is not affected by non-receipt of the entire sale consideration, and the plaintiff's claim of fraud and coercion in obtaining the Sale Deed required specific details and particulars.

JUDGMENT

amit Bansal, J. - I.a.14422/2021 (of the defendant No. 3 u/O-VII R-11 of the CPC)

1. This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/defendant No. 3 Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant No. 3 Bank') under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. Notice in this application was issued on 9th November, 2021 and a reply has been filed on behalf of the non-applicant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff').

3. In the said plaint, it has been pleaded that:

(i) The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 31st July, 2017 pursuant to which the defendant No. 2 loaned Rs. 25,00,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff handed over the original title deed of the suit property to the defendant No. 2. as per the said MoU, the total amount to be loaned was Rs. 65,00,000/-.

(ii) The defendant No. 2 did not pay the balance loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the plaintiff and instead started to put pressure on the plaintiff to repay Rs.25,00,000/-.

(iii) The defendant No. 2 agreed to defer the return of the money and also agreed to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.40,00,000/-, subject to the plaintiff executing a sale deed qua the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 1.

(iv) On 22nd March, 2018, the defendant No. 2 transferred another sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the plaintiff.

(v) On 22nd March, 2018 and on 23rd March, 2018, the defendant No. 2 forced the plaintiff to transfer a total of Rs.22,00,000/- to account of Ravi Enterprises, a firm owned by the defendant No. 2. Therefore, the plaintiff has effectively received only Rs.28,00,000/- from the defendant No. 2, that too in terms of the MoU.

(vi) The plaintiff forcibly executed a Sale Deed dated 3rd april, 2018 qua the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 1 without any monetary consideration and only to secure the loan amount. However, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the property.

(vii) The Sale Deed records the consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000/-, however, no amount was received towards such sale by way of cheques as are detailed in the Sale Deed. The said sale deed was also registered in the records of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi.

(viii) The defendants No. 1 and 2 created an equitable mortgage in respect of the suit property and handed over the original Sale Deed to the defendant No. 3 Bank for availing credit facilities of Rs.9,00,00,000/-.

(ix) On the failure of the defendant No. 1 to repay the aforesaid due amount to the defendant No. 3 Bank, the defendant No. 3 Bank declared the account NPa and initiated the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002 (SaRFaESI act) by starting the process to sell off the plaintiff's suit property.

(x) The first e-auction notice was issued by the Oriental Bank of Commerce (now the defendant No. 3 Bank) on 16th November, 2019. The plaintiff replied to the same via notice dated 7th December, 2019.

(xi) Pursuant to meetings held between the parties, the defendant No. 2 agreed to settle his account and it was agreed that the defendants No. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs.35,00,000/- to regularize their account, and upon which assurance the defendant No. 3 Bank agreed to defer the sale of the suit property.

(xii) However, on 5th November, 2020, another e-auction notice in respect of the suit property was issued to the plaintiff.

(xiii) The plaintiff sent a notice dated 7th December, 2020 to the defendant No. 3 Bank and to the Sub-Registrar stating that the Sale Deed dated 3rd april, 2018 was obtained by fraud and coercion and was liable to be cancelled.

(xiv) The defendant No. 3 Bank sent a reply to said notice on 15th January, 2021 stating that the defendant No. 3 Bank had a valid and subsisting charge on the suit property and denied all allegations of the plaintiff.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the present suit ha