KAMLA RANI Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiffs is that they purchased second floor of property No.108 comprised in Khasra No.250 of Mehrauli from defendant No.1 on 21.05.2004 and the sale deed was duly executed by defendant No.1 in their favour. The sale deed by defendant No.1 was executed as attorney of the previous owner Smt. Deep Mala. THIS is also the case of the plaintiffs that possession of the aforesaid property had already been delivered to them on 29.03.2004. It later transpired that in a sham transaction, defendant No.1 had conveyed title of the aforesaid property to defendant No.2 in a clandestine manner. Defendant No.2 then took a loan from defendant No.3 ? Allahabad Bank on the strength of the title deed executed by defendant No.1 in his favour. The plaintiffs have accordingly sought a declaration that the right, title and interest in the second floor of property No.108 comprised in Khasra No.250 of Mehrauli vest with them and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in their favour is legal and valid in law. They have sought a further declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is void ab initio. They have also sought a declaration that the mortgage of the suit property by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is vitiated in law.

(2.) DEFENDANT No.1 filed written statement contesting this suit. It is alleged in the written statement that the dispute is between defendants No.2 & 3 and defendant No.1 has nothing to do with that dispute.

(3.) IT is an admitted case that this sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was executed on 07th January, 2004, more than two months before he executed documents, such as Power of Attorney and possession letter in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, this is not a case where defendant No. 1 first agreed to sell/sold the suit property to the plaintiffs and later sold it to defendant No. 2. Since defendant No. 2 had already become owner of the suit property on execution of the sale deed in his favour on 07 th January, 2004, defendant No. 1, who, thereafter, was left with no right, title or interest in the aforesaid property, had no legal right to enter into an agreement to sell the aforesaid property, deliver its possession to the plaintiffs and execute the sale deed in their favour.