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.
Gurpreet Sethi - Appellant
Versus
Yogender Nath Bhardwaj - Respondent
CS(OS) 169 of 2021
Decided On : 16-03-2022




The court affirmed that a valid Sale Deed confers equal ownership rights despite prior encumbrances, dismissing the defendant's objections about the seller's title as unfounded.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 43 and 13 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The Court ruled on partition issues, affirming the plaintiff's joint ownership under a Sale Deed. The defendant's objections based on alleged defects in the seller's title were dismissed, and the Sale Deed was deemed valid despite previous encumbrances. (Paras 14, 25, 27)

(B) Legal Authority - The doctrine 'nemo dat quod non habet' was referenced, establishing that one cannot transfer a better title than they possess. (Para 8)

(C) Rights of Purchaser - Section 13(1) of the Specific Relief Act provides protections for purchasers against imperfect titles. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff initiated a partition suit concerning jointly owned property, following the defendant's non-response to partition requests. The defendant acknowledged execution of the Sale Deed but raised objections regarding the seller's title being encumbered by a mortgage.

Findings of Court:
The Sale Deed was found valid, with no current encumbrances on the property, thus entitling the plaintiff to partition.

Issues: The court addressed the validity of the Sale Deed and whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim equal shares given the defendant's arguments against the seller's capacity to convey title.

Ratio Decidendi: The execution of a Sale Deed creates co-ownership rights despite previous encumbrances unless actively contested in law, validating the claim for partition.

Result: The plaintiff's application for partition was allowed, and a local commissioner was appointed to assist in the execution of the partition.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J.(Oral)

I.A. 11253/2021 (u/O XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of the Plaintiff)

1. The Plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking partition of property bearing plot no. 42 & 43, admeasuring 87.6 Sq. mtrs (each), situated at Transport Centre, Azadpur Mandi, Delhi-110033 [hereinafter, `Suit Property'].

2. The Suit Property was jointly purchased by the Plaintiff and Defendant under a Sale Deed dated 02nd June, 2014, registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar bearing Registration No. 9745, Book No.1, Volume No. 5312 from page 1 to 8 [hereinafter, `Sale Deed'].

3. The Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 19th August, 2019 upon the Defendant for partition of Suit Property, to which the Defendant did not reply or agree. Thus, the instant suit has been instituted, seeking partition thereof, in equal share.

4. In light of the averments made by the Defendant in the written statement, the instant application has been filed, seeking judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

5. The short question before the Court is whether there is an admission which entitles the Plaintiff to the judgment as prayed for.

6. The Defendant, in paragraph no. 10 of the written statement, admits the execution of the Sale Deed, in the following words:

    "10. That on 22nd July 2014 a sale deed was executed wherein the plot no. 42 and 43 along with construction thereon situated at Transport Nagar, Azadpur Mandi, Delhi-110033 were transferred by Mr. Manwani to defendant and Smt. Gurpeet Sethi wife of Sanjay Sethi and daughter in law of Mr. Ramesh Sethi for a sum of Rs.3.50 crores and he assured to pay an amount of-Rs.5.50 lacs per month as assured return on Rs.3.50 crores for using this premises. Mr. Manwani agreed to execute the documents rent/lease deed for this but never did so. Mr. Manwani had paid Rs.5.50 lacs to defendant and Mr. Sethi only for one month and that too in parts like Rs.50000/- and Rs.25000/- in cash and kept on assuring that he will pay the money but did not keep his promises. The defendant has come to know that all this manipulation was created by Mr. Manwani to get money from defendant and from Mr. Sethi for his own business needs and he had dishonest intention from the beginning to cheat the defendant and Mr. Ramesh Sethi."

7. Despite admission of execution of the sale deed, the relief sought in the suit is vehemently opposed by the Defendant. The sum and substance of the objection is founded on the plea that the Sale Deed, as on date of execution, was under a mortgage with HDFC Bank, Azadpur Branch. Since the Suit Property was a collateral security against loan of working capital, availed by the seller, it limited the beneficial enjoyment of the seller to dispose the Suit Property and thus, Mr. Bhagwan Das Manwani did not have legal competence to execute the Sale Deed, without first having obtained permission and No Objection from HDFC Bank. Hence, Mr. Bhagwan Das Manwani did not have "clear title" in respect of the Suit Property and the Sale Deed so executed by him is void ab initio.

8. The averments to that effect are as follows:

    "That in fact Mr. Bhagwan Das Manwani did not have legal competence to execute the said Sale Deed in favour of any party without first having obtained permission and No Objection in writing from HDFC Bank which was not done. There is well established doctrine of law namely "nemo defendant quad non habet" which means "no one can transfer a better title than he himself possesses". Since Mr. Bhagwan Das Manwani had mortgaged the said Cold Storage in favour of HDFC Bank, he did not have a "clear title" in respect of the said Cold Storage on July 22", 2014 and thus the Sale Deed so executed by him was ab initio invalid in law. Mr. Manwani made a false statement in the said Sale Deed that the property is free from all encumbrances as the said property was mortgaged with the HDFC Bank on the

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