The court affirmed that oral evidence contradicting written agreements is inadmissible, and the Plaintiff’s Suit was barred by limitation due to the absence of supporting evidence for claimed oral agreements.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

I.A. 43315/2024

1. This Application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC has been filed by the Defendants, seeking a decree for dismissing the Suit filed by the Plaintiff.

2. The present Suit has been filed with the following prayers:

“a. Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally directing the defendants to deliver up the documents like Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2010, General Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2010, Special Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2010, Will dated 12.07.2010, and any other in the nature of agreement, attorney, possession letter or receipt etc. and consequently declare the said documents sham, void undisclosed deed/document and in-operative in the eyes of law and/or cancel the said documents and strike the registered documents from the records of Sub-Registrar-IX at Kapashera, New Delhi, details of which are as under:

Agreement to Sell Registration No. 9061 in AB No. 1, Vol. No. 5447 on pages no. 110-119 on 12.07.2010 General Power of Registration No. 2711 in AB Attorney No. IV, Vol. No. 1457 on pages no. 60-64 on 12.07.2010 Special Power of Registration No. 4449 in AB Attorney No. III, Vol. No. 524 on pages no. 96-97 on 12.07.2010 Any other deed/document and b. Pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally thereby put the plaintiff in actual physical possession of the suit plot bearing Plot No. 121 measuring 209 sq. metres, Pocket No. 07, Block-B, Sector 23, Dwarka Residential Scheme Phase-II, New Delhi, shown in red coloured boundary in the site plan filed with the plaint; and c. Pass a decree of perpetual injunction thereby restraining the defendants jointly and severally, and their agents, servants, employees, officials, heirs, legal representatives. liquidators, assigns etc. from creating any kind of third-party rights in the suit plot bearing Plot No. 121 measuring 2Og sq. metres, Pocket No. 07,Block-B, Sector 23, Dwarka Residential Scheme Phase I-II, New Delhi, shown in red coloured boundary in the site plan filed with the plaint; and Any other/further and suitable relief may be granted in favour of the Plaintiff in accordance with law.”

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as stated in the Plaint, are as under:

a. The Plaintiff was allotted a residential plot bearing Plot No. 121 measuring 209 sq. metres, Pocket No. 07, Block-B, Sector 23, Dwarka Residential Scheme Phase-II, New Delhi [“Suit Property”], in a draw held on 05.02.2010 by the Delhi Development Authority [“DDA”]. To this effect, a Demand cum-Allotment Letter dated 15.06.2010/07.07.2010 was also issued by the DDA. It is stated that this allotment was done in furtherance of a Recommendation Letter dated 02.07.2004 issued by the Land and Development Department, GNCTD.

b. Prior to 2010, the Plaintiff was allotted an alternative plot in Sector 7, Dwarka, Delhi, pursuant to the abovementioned Recommendation Letter, however, the Plaintiff could not avail the same on account of paucity of funds.

c. In order to make payment to the DDA pursuant to the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter dated 07.07.2010, the Plaintiff arranged funds to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/- by availing a loan from the Defendant No. 2.

d. The Defendant No. 2 acknowledged the Plaintiff's intention of not selling or alienating the Suit Property and thereafter, agreed to arrange the payment of cost of the Suit