GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. SARASWATI MISHRA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No.5789/2012 & 2808/2014

(2.) The suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration for declaring the sale deed dated 31.8.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for a decree of cancellation of the said deed and other connected reliefs. The brief facts are that the plaintiff claims to be the bonafide purchaser of agricultural land measuring 20 bighas 8 biswas in village Rafipur, Ranhola, New Delhi stated to be purchased for a consideration of Rs.4 lacs from the defendant No.1 through her attorney defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 05.03.2001. Possession is also stated to have been handed over to the plaintiff by the vendor on the spot. It is elaborated that defendant No.2 purchased a total land of 28 Bighas 16 Biswas for Rs.16 lacs in respect of which a written receipt was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on 28.8.2000. It is out of this 28 Bighas and 16 Biswas that the plaintiff purchased land measuring 20 Bighas and 8 Biswas vide sale deed dated 05.03.2001. The mutation was sanctioned by order of Tehsildar, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 07.04.2001. Defendant No.1 challenged the said order of mutation passed by the Tehsildar in favour of the plaintiff before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector vide order dated 16.04.2010 set aside the order of the Tehsildar. The plaintiff challenged the order of the Additional Collector before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the said appeal of the plaintiff. The matter was challenged in the High Court and it is stated that the writ petition is pending. It is also pointed out that defendant No.1 has filed a separate suit in the Civil Court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 5.3.2001 was challenged. The said suit it is said is still pending. It is stated that now it has transpired that defendant No.1 has in violation of an interim order of the Financial Commissioner executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 on 31.8.2010. The said sale deed is what is sought to be challenged in the present suit.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 has strenuously urged that the present suit is a gross abuse of the process of the Court. He submits that defendant No.2 the alleged power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 is actually a property broker who in connivance with the plaintiff has duped defendant No.1, who it is urged is a simple lady staying in Orissa. Defendant No.1 it is urged was hoodwinked into signing some blank documents which were forged into a power of attorney by the defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 had helped defendant No.1 purchase the present suit property long back hence defendant No.1 had confidence in defendant No.2. It is pointed out that on account of the fraud done by defendant No.2 and the plaintiff an FIR was lodged against the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and the police has filed a chargesheet against plaintiff and defendant No.2. The chargesheet gives a complete description of the fraud played by defendant No.2 where plaintiff is an active party. It is pointed out that the chargesheet lists out six earlier attempts by defendant No.2 to deceive defendant No.1 and abuse the process and transfer the property in his name. It is pointed out that in the Suit filed by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff in District Courts it is very clearly described by defendant No.1 that she was promised Rs.1,10,00,000/- as sale consideration but was paid only Rs.16 lacs and she was made to sign some blank papers by the defendant No.2. It appears that these blank papers have been converted to a power of attorney and defendant No.2 has thereafter exeuted a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 05.03.2001.