CM(M) 802/2022

Page 1 of 11

$~76

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 802/2022 & CM APPL. 35507/2022, CM APPL.

35508/2022

PUJA RAY

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Simarpal Singh Sawhney

and Mr. Sidhant Juyal, Advs.

versus

DHANRAJ & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. for

Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC for R-5

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T(ORAL)

%

17.08.2022

1.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

takes exception to order dated 15^th July 2022 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge (―the learned ADJ‖) in CS 1764/2018 (Puja

Ray v. Dhanraj).

2.

The impugned order reads thus:

―IN THE COURT OF ADJ-07, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,

SAKET COURTS, DELHI

Presided by:- Mr. Jay Thareja, DHJS

CS No.1764/18

Ms. Puja Ray v Sh. Dhanraj

15.07.2022

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003154

CM(M) 802/2022

Page 2 of 11

Present:

Sh. Siddhant Juyal, Ld. Advocate for the

plaintiff alongwith plaintiff.

Sh. Onkar Pandey and Sh. Brijesh Kumar

Kushwaha, Ld. Advocate for the defendants

no.1 to 3 alongwith defendant no.1.

Sh. Manoj Kumar and Sh. Divyendu Sorayan,

Ld. Advocates for the defendant no.4 alongwith

defendant no.4.

The mediation settlement dated 23.03.2022 has been

perused. As per clause 6 of the said mediation settlement, the

plaintiff is suppose to become the owner of the suit property,

after the defendant no.4 (her husband) gets Rs.75,000/- from

the defendant no.1 and the sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from the

plaintiff. The defendant no.4 has already received Rs.75,000/-

from the defendant no.1. The plaintiff is yet to pay the sum of

Rs.1,75,000/- to the defendant no.4. The plaintiff is carrying

the said money by way of a DD. The record shows that the

sale deed dated 11.07.2017 qua the suit property is in the

name of the defendant no.4. The transfer of title qua the suit

Registration Act, 1908. Before the plaintiff pays the sum of

Rs.1,75,000/- to the defendant no.4, the parties are directed to

file a draft copy of the said instrument. List on 02.08.2022.

(JAY THAREJA)

ADJ-07, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi

15.07.2022‖

(Emphasis supplied)

3.

Mr. Sawhney submits that the view expressed by the learned

ADJ in italicised words in the impugned order dated 15^th July 2022 is

contrary both to statute and precedent. In his submission, the learned

ADJ ought to have directly decreed the suit in terms of the settlement

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003154

CM(M) 802/2022

Page 3 of 11

between the parties and was completely misdirected in holding that a

duly stamped and registered instrument was necessary for transferring

title in respect of the suit property.

4.

The facts, in brief.

5.

The petitioner is the wife of Respondent 4. Respondents 1 to 3

are builders, who are stated to have approached the petitioner with the

proposal to sell a flat situated at RZ-111-D, First Floor, Back Side,

Gali No. 14, Khasra No. 520, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi-

110019 (―the suit property‖).

6.

According to the petitioner, by an oral agreement, Respondents

1 to 3 agreed to sell the suit property to the petitioner for a

consideration of ₹ 9,00,000/- lakhs, of which, consequent to payment

of ₹ 1,50,000/- lakhs on 27^th March 2015, possession of the suit

property was taken over by the petitioner.

7.

The petitioner alleged, in the plaint instituted by her, that

repeated requests to Respondents 1 to 3 to execute a sale deed, on the

petitioner’s paying the remaining sale consideration, fell on deaf ears.

8.

It is also averred in the petition that, on 22^nd September 2015,

the Respondents 1 to 3 issued a general power of attorney in the name

of the petitioner, but that Respondent 4 is in possession thereof.

9.

In August 2018, the plaint avers, the petitioner came across an

This is a digitally signed Judgement.