SUBHASH CHANDER AHUJA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Suit the Plaintiff has prayed that four instruments, being two Gift Deeds and two Relinquishment Deeds, all dated 27th February, 2002 be declared void and cancelled and be delivered to the Plaintiffs; and for the issuing of a Perpetual Injunction restraining Defendant No.1 from dealing in any manner with the properties covered by these four Deeds. Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and Defendant No.1 are real brothers and the aforementioned Deeds have the effect of conveying/transferring properties by these Plaintiffs to Defendant No.1. The Plaint has been filed on 16th October, 2003, almost twenty months after the execution of these documents.

(2.) Learned counsel for Defendant No.1 has strongly contended that there are various inconsistencies, of great import, in the sequence of events narrated in the Plaint and in documents, and in the arguments put forward on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Broadly stated the Plaintiffs' narration of events is that whilst all four documents were signed and executed on 27th February, 2002, a misunderstanding had occurred on that date itself and therefore the documents ought not to have been accorded registration under the Registration Act. Mr.Singhla had no doubt attempted to argue contrary to the sequence of events mentioned in the letter of Plaintiff No.2, dated 11.3.2002, addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Sub-District VI-B, Pitam Pura, Delhi. It is indeed of significance that this letter had been authored a fortnight after the alleged misunderstanding between the brothers, even though the registration of the four documents would undisputably have far-reaching consequences. This conduct is contrary to normal human reaction. The Plaintiffs must be held to the contents of the said letter. The letter states thus:

(3.) On a perusal of the previous proceedings, it emerges that my learned Brother, C.K. Mahajan, 1 had summoned the Sub-Registrar and had received his explanation as to why the documents presented for registration on 27th February, 2002, in respect of which the Registration Slip had been issued eventually came to be registered/delivered to Defendant No.1 on 13.11.2002 and/or 20.11.2002. I must assure that the explanation was found to be satisfactory as no further directions had been asked for or issued in this context, as also the fact that the interim applications which are now being disposed off had not been pressed by learned counsel for the Plaintiff while the matter was fresh in every detail in everyone's mind and memory.