CRP.NO.172/2008 & FAO423/2008 Page 1 of 10

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRP.No.172/2008

%

Date of decision: 15^th December, 2009.

VIJAY MANCHANDA & ANR

….… Petitioners

Through: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate

Versus

ASHOK MANCHANDA

....... Respondent

Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Advocate.

AND

FAO 423/2008

ASHOK MANCHANDA

….… Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Advocate

Versus

VIJAY MANCHANDA & ORS

....... Respondents

Through: Mr Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate

CORAM :-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.

Whether reporters of Local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not?

Yes

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

Yes

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The revision petition under section 115 of the CPC and the FAO under Order

43 rule 1(r) of the CPC arise from the orders in the same suit, disposing of the

applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Order 39 Rule 4 and Order 7 Rule 11 of

the CPC.

CRP.NO.172/2008 & FAO423/2008 Page 2 of 10

2. The suit from which these petition and appeal have arisen was instituted by

Shri Ashok Manchanda hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff against Shri Vijay

Manchanda and Smt Poonam Manchanda hereinafter referred to as the defendants.

The suit was instituted for cancellation of sale deed dated 10^th August, 2000 executed

by the defendant No.1 Shri Vijay Manchanda in favour of the defendant No.2 Smt

Poonam Manchanda with respect to the property No.699, first floor, double storey,

New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. It is, inter alia, the case of the plaintiff in the plaint

that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are brothers; the defendant No.2 is the wife

of the defendant No.1; that the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 had vide agreement

dated 17^th August, 1993 agreed to purchase the aforesaid property from one Smt

Usha Sachdev and had paid the entire sale consideration to the said Smt Usha

Sachdev and the property agreed to be purchased being lease hold and the execution

of the sale deed thereof being not immediately possible, the said Smt Usha Sachdev

had, as per practice, executed a general power of attorney with respect to the said

property in favour of the defendant No.1 enabling the defendant No.1 to sell the said

property; that the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 in part performance of the

agreement to sell were also put into possession of the aforesaid property and were

thereafter holding themselves out as owner of the said property having half share

each; that the defendant No.1 however misused the power of attorney executed in his

favour in pursuance to the agreement to sell aforesaid and executed sale deed of one

half share in the property in favour of the defendant No.2 on 9^th August, 2000 and

another sale deed with respect to the other half share in the property on 10^th August,

2000 thereby purporting to make his wife the defendant No.2 who under the

agreement to sell was entitled to only half share in the property, the absolute owner

of the property; that the plaintiff learnt of the execution of the said sale deeds only on

29^th October, 2007. The plaintiff thus instituted the suit for cancellation of the sale

deed dated 10^th August, 2000 with respect to the one half share in the property.

3. The suit was accompanied with an application for interim relief. It appears

that vide ex parte/interim order the defendants in the suit were restrained from

dealing with the property.

CRP.NO.172/2008 & FAO423/2008 Page 3 of 10

4. The defendants contested the suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule

11 of the CPC for rejection of the p