SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



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




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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 91 and 92 - Plaint seeking cancellation of a Sale Deed on grounds of fraud - Court emphasized that registered Sale Deed is conclusive of parties' intentions and supersedes any prior agreements - Plaintiffs must provide detailed particulars of alleged fraud, which was lacking - Application to reject plaint allowed. (Paras 8, 10, 18)

(B) Fraud - Allegations of fraud must be supported by specific particulars as mandated by law - Mere assertions without substantial evidence do not suffice to maintain a suit. (Paras 13, 14)

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top