IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Madhu Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
Neelam Jain - Respondent
CS(OS) 26 of 2020 & I.A. Nos. 992 of 2020, 993 of 2020 and 8908 of 2021
Decided On : 16-12-2021
JUDGMENT
[VIA HYBRID MODE]
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)
I.A. No. 7875/2021 (u/Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter "CPC"] on behalf of Defendant No. 1 seeking rejection of plaint) in CS(OS) 26/2020
1. The above captioned application filed by Defendant No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC, supported by Defendant No. 2, seeks rejection of the plaint in the present suit, filed by the Plaintiffs seeking, inter-alia, cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 30th August, 2017 executed by the Plaintiffs with respect to basement, ground floor and first floor of property bearing No. AE-90, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 built up on land measuring 247.50 sq. meters [hereinafter "suit property"].
BRIEF FACTS
2. Before adverting to the grounds urged by the Applicants, it would be apposite to briefly note the narrative as set out, in the plaint as follows:
2.1. Plaintiffs propound that they are joint owners of the suit property. Defendants No. 1 and 2 had approached them through property dealers viz. Defendant No. 3 and Mr. Mukul Lamba along with Mr. Bhupinder Jain and Mr. Sanjay Jain, for purchase of the entire built-up suit property. After negotiations, Plaintiffs entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 26th June, 2017 [hereinafter "ATS 1"] with Defendants No. 1 and 2 to sell the entire built-up property (basement to top with terrace and free-hold rights) situated at AE-90, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,85,00,000/-. This Agreement includes the suit property, described above.
2.2. Defendants No. 1 and 2 approached the Plaintiffs through Defendant No. 3 and expressed their inability in making full and final payment of the sale consideration within the stipulated time period under ATS 1 and sought extension of time for making such payment. After assurances given by Defendant No. 3 and several requests made by Defendants No. 1 and 2, Plaintiffs agreed to execute a sale deed qua the suit property with the pre-condition that sale deed shall be deemed as a `collateral security' towards the full and final payment being made by the Defendants No. 1 and 2 to the Plaintiffs. Neither actual physical possession of any part of the suit property was agreed to be handed over to the Defendants No. 1 and 2 nor were they entitled to claim any benefits arising from any part of the said suit property, till the making the full and final balance payment qua the entire suit property (basement to top with terrace and free-hold rights), as per ATS 1.
2.3. An Agreement to Sell dated 29th August, 2017 [hereinafter "ATS 2"] was entered into between the Plaintiffs and Defendants No. 1 and 2. The same was entered into for extension of time for payment of balance amount qua the total sale consideration due towards the entire property under ATS 1 and also to execute sale deed as `collateral security'. Under ATS 2, the Plaintiffs had reserved their right of receiving rent from Defendant No. 5 viz. Bank of India, that is a tenant of the Plaintiffs, till the maturity of ATS 1 and ATS 2.
2.4. Thereafter, a Sale Deed dated 30th August, 2017 was executed by the Plaintiffs with respect to basement, ground floor and first floor (suit property). The said Sale Deed is duly registered with the Sub Registrar VI A, Pitampura, Delhi [Registration No. 10654 in in Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 7076 on pages 116 to 129 in the office of Sub Registrar VI A, Pitampura, Delhi].
2.5. The said Sale Deed was executed as Plaintiffs were persuaded by Defendants No. 1 and 2 with `sweet and smooth talks' and on `fraudulent assurances'. It premised on an understanding between the parties that the same shall be deemed to be a `collateral security' until full and final payment and was executed on assurances given by Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 that neither third-party interest(s) shall be created, nor would any rights be claimed till making the full and final payment to the Plainti
A registered Sale Deed is conclusive and supersedes prior agreements unless fraud is specifically pleaded with particulars; allegations without detail are inadequate to support a claim.
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 p....
The plaint must disclose a cause of action, and the permissibility of oral averments contradicting a written document depends on the applicability of relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
Non-payment of part of sale consideration does not invalidate a registered sale deed; title passes at execution regardless of payment status.
The intention of the parties in a sale deed, as evidenced by the recitals, is crucial in determining the passing of title and the validity of the sale. The power of the registering authority to cance....
The validity of a registered sale deed is presumed and the burden of proving its invalidity due to fraud lies on the challengers.
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.