SHEILA DEVI Vs. SANTOSH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Order 41 Rules 25 & 27 CPC the appellant/applicant in this regular second appeal seeks to file transcript of a recorded conversation which took place between the parties when the notices of this second appeal were sought to be got served. In a second appeal, such type of application which is filed, is quite clearly an abuse of the process of law not only because the appeal has to be ordinarily decided as per records of the courts below but also because surreptitiously recording of conversation cannot have any meaning because statements are made many a times off the cuff by any of the parties because it is not intended that the same is to be brought on the judicial record. In any case the records of this case reveal that original plaintiff, and who is the respondent herein is represented by an attorney and which is for the reason that probably the attorney may have purchased rights in the suit property. Therefore, nothing turns on the fact that the original plaintiff would state that she was not interested in coming to the court or that she has no concern with the suit property. In fact, any admissions made, cannot be relied upon by the appellants inasmuch as, the same would be against the spirit of the provision of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC which requires that any settlement outside courts can only be by means of an agreement in writing and signed by the parties. I would in fact go to say that such surreptitious actions by the parties by taking advantage of unguarded position by recording of statements should not be encouraged in the facts such as the present. The application is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(2.) At the time of admission of the appeal on 2.12.2013, the following substantial question of law was framed:-

(3.) Whereas the plaintiff claimed ownership of the plot by means of the registered sale deed dated 5.4.1971 (Ex.PW-1/2) and which was registered on 7.4.1971, defendants relied upon the sale deed executed on 8.4.1971 (Ex.DW-3/5) and registered on the same date. The original owner of the plot in question is admittedly one Sh. Chandru, son of Sh. Chhuttan resident of village Ghonda, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi. Whereas the plaintiff claims that the suit property was purchased by the sale deed (Ex.PW1/2) dated 5.4.1971 registered on 7.4.1971, defendants claimed that Sh. Chandru had sold the property to one Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta, son of Sh. Subhash resident of Old Seemapuri, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi by a sale deed dated 8.4.1971, and Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta sold the suit property by means of a General Power of Attorney dated 15.7.1980 (Ex.DW3/4) to one Sh. Sohan Pal, son of Sh. Naththu Singh, resident of Village Kakaar Nari P.O.Nanota District Saharanpur, U.P. It is from Sh. Sohanpal's rights that the property were purchased by the appellants-defendants by means of the Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Receipt (all dated 14.8.1997 and exhibited as Ex.DW-3/1 to Ex.DW3/3)