Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 545
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
MONICA GOGIA – Appellant
Versus
M/S RSS ESTATE LLP & ANR. – Respondent
CS(OS)-202/2024
The court emphasized that allegations of fraud in the execution of Sale Deeds warrant interim relief, allowing access to property and preventing third-party rights until resolution.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 4 - Cancellation of Agreement to Sell and Sale Deeds - Plaintiff sought injunction against defendants from selling or altering suit property after alleging fraud in execution of Sale Deeds. Court found prima facie case for interim relief, emphasizing the need for access to property and preventing third-party rights. (Paras 1, 20, 95)
(B) Fraud - The court reiterated that fraud vitiates all transactions, and the genuineness of the Sale Deeds was under challenge due to alleged coercion and misrepresentation. (Paras 60, 84)
(C) Easementary Rights - The court recognized the plaintiff's right to access through the main gate, asserting that the defendants could not obstruct this access pending resolution of the dispute. (Paras 87, 94)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of agricultural land and alleged that the defendants fraudulently executed Sale Deeds without full payment. The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from altering the property or blocking access. (Paras 2, 19)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for interim relief, allowing access to the property and preventing third-party rights until the case is resolved. (Paras 95, 96)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Sale Deeds, the alleged fraud in their execution, and the plaintiff's right to access the property. (Paras 60, 84)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of fraud warranted an interim injunction, emphasizing that the presumption of genuineness of registered documents is rebuttable. (Paras 82, 84)
Result: The plaintiff's application for interim injunction was allowed, and the defendants' application to vacate the stay was dismissed. (Paras 96)
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. I.A.5646/2024; Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC by the Plaintiff & I.A.5872/2024: Application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC by the Defendant to vacate the Stay Dated 09.03.2024.
1. An Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 And 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟ hereinafter) has been filed by the plaintiff and Application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC has been filed on behalf of the defendants for vacating the ex-parte ad-interim Orders dated 09.03.2024.
2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff had instituted the aforesaid suit for cancellation of Agreement to Sell dated 22.01.2024 and the consequent purported two Sale Deeds dated 23.02.2024 executed with defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property and for Permanent Injunction for restraining the defendants from selling or parting with possession of the suit property.
3. As stated in the plaint, the plaintiff is a sole and absolute owner of the Agricultural Land measuring 4 bighas (4032 sq. yards) bearing Mustatil No. 33 Killa No. 17 min (4-0) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) which is a part of the Agricultural Land admeasuring 12 bighas and 02 biswas Killa No. 17 min(4-0) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “entire property”). The applicant/plaintiff had acquired the entire property from HDFC Ltd. by way of a Public Auction in furtherance of which the Sale Certificate dated 12.05.2020 bearing Document No. 2030 and Additional Book No. I, Volume No. 3332 registered with the Office of Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, has been issued.
4. The plaintiff entered into two Agreements to Sell, both dated 22.01.2024 with defendant No.1 M/s RSS Estate LLP. One Agreement to Sell (hereinafter referred to as “ATS-I”) was in respect of 4032 sq. yards of the entire property with the sole entrance to the entire property and the second Agreement to Sell (hereinafter referred to as “ATS-II”) pertains to the remaining part of the entire property, admeasuring 8168 sq. yards. The reason given by the defendants for executing two separate Agreements to Sell was that since total sale consideration was huge, executing two Agreements to Sell with different timelines for payment of consideration would allow the defendant with adequate time to arrange for the entire funds and it would be easier for the defendants to avail loan facilities in two tranches. It is stated by the plaintiff that prevailing market value of the entire property in question was approximately 135 Crores.
5. In respect of ATS-I for suit property measuring 4032 sq. yards the defendant was to pay a total consideration of Rs.38 Crores, out of which Rs.10 Crores was paid at the time of execution of ATS-I and the balance consideration was payable on or before 10.02.2024. The ATS-II for the remaining part of the entire property for which a total consideration was Rs.95,50,00,000/- out of which Rs.18,50,00,000/- was paid by the defendant at the time of execution of the ATS-II and the balance consideration was payable on or before 22.07.2024.
6. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant failed to pay the balance sale consideration under ATS-I till the stipulated time and on enquiry from the plaintiff, it made some specious excuses about the concerned Bank being in the process of approving the loan. The defendant assured that it shall release all the payments soon before the date of execution of the Sale Deed.
7. The plaintiff had asserted that when it approached the defendant for execution of the requested documents pursuant to ATS-I, the defendant assured that he would be bringing the officials of the Bank to the property of the plaintiff on 20.02.2024 to obtain signatures on NOCs and other documents in order to secure the loan. However, on 19.02.2024 the defendant No.2 along with 4-5 of his associates landed at the residence of the plaintiff
