Defendant's plea barred under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sale consideration passed to Defendant.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

C.M. APPL. 9631/2023 (Exemption) in RFA 161/2023

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

C.M. APPL. 9632/2023 (delay) in RFA 161/2023

3. Present application has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 24 days in refiling the appeal.

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr. Manish Gandhi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents.

6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

7. Delay of 24 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

8. Application stands disposed of.

RFA 161/2023 & C.M. APPL. 9630/2023 (stay)

RFA 130/2023 & C.M. APPL. 8067/2023 (stay)

9. RFA 161/2023 has been filed by the Appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2022, passed by the learned Trial Court, directing the Appellant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property bearing No. 158, Ground Floor and First Floor, Block F-1U, Pitampura, Delhi, ad-measuring 126.687 sq. yards to the Respondents along with damages of Rs.3 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum. RFA 130/2023 is filed by the Appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2022, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the counter claim of the Appellant. Since the appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree and issues in both are inextricably linked, both appeals are being decided by this common judgment. Appellant was the Defendant before the Trial Court and Respondents were Plaintiffs and parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court.

10. Plaintiffs had appeared on Caveat and were put to notice for today. With the consent of the parties, both the appeals have been taken up for hearing and final disposal.

11. Brief facts as put forth by the Plaintiffs are that Defendant was the owner of the suit property and after due deliberations between the parties, it was agreed that Defendant would sell the suit property to the Plaintiffs for a total consideration of Rs.1 Crore. In furtherance thereof, a Sale Deed was executed between the parties on 10.07.2013 and payment was made by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant vide three separate Demand Drafts and the Sale Deed was registered. Details of the Demand Drafts are as follows:

12. After the execution of the Sale Deed and in accordance with the terms incorporated therein, Defendant handed over symbolic possession of the suit property to the Plaintiffs, but sought 15 days to vacate the premises and assured payment of licence fee for the said period. Defendant was thus liable to vacate the suit premises by the last week of July, 2013, but failed to do so with dishonest intention to usurp the property and instead sent a legal notice dated 02.08.2013, falsely stating that the Demand Drafts were not received by her. Plaintiffs immediately responded to the notice on 05.08.2013, denying the contents of the notice and also sent a legal notice dated 10.08.2013, calling upon the Defendant to vacate the premises under her unlawful occupation.

13. When the Defendant refused to hand over the possession of the suit property and Plaintiffs learnt that Defendant was in the process of selling the property, Plaintiffs filed the suit from which the present appeals arise, seeking decree of possession, mesne profits/damages @ Rs.30,000 per month, from the date of filing of the suit till actual delivery of possession as well as for mandatory injunction restraining the Defendant and her assignees, etc. from creating third-party rights in the suit property.

14. Upon receipt of summons, Defendant filed her written statement as also a counter claim for declaring the Sale Deed dated 10.07.2013 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from creating third-party rights and/or any oth