ANUJ CHOPRA Vs. VANEETA KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these two proceedings are aggrieved by a judgment of a learned Single Judge decreeing the respondents' suit. The appellants in RFA 117/2015 were arrayed as Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 (hereafter referred to as "Chopras"). They appeal the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge, allowing a suit for declaration and possession, filed by the first two respondents (hereafter variously "the plaintiffs" or "the Khannas"). The first defendant ("Rajiv" hereafter) is arrayed as the third respondent; the fourth respondent was the second defendant, (referred to hereafter as "Judge Chawla"). Rajiv, in RFA 21/2016, appeals the same decree, to the extent it directs him to pay mesne profits.

(2.) The Khannas had filed a suit before the Additional District Judge under Sections 5 and 6 of Specific Relief Act contending that in furtherance to a sale transaction with Judge Chawla, (a General Power of Attorney holder of Rajiv), they became owners of property No. 8/289, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi ("suit property") after payment of full sale consideration and execution of Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA) and Special Power of Attorney (SPA) by Judge Chawla in their favour. The vacant physical possession of suit property was, according to the suit, delivered to the plaintiffs on 12.05.2004 and after taking possession the plaintiffs had placed their locks over the suit property. It was contended that after entering into the sale transactions and handing over possession, the first and second defendants trespassed the suit property and colluded with each other along with sisters of Rajiv, to deprive the plaintiffs of the property so purchased. trespassed the property. The Khannas discovered this trespass when they visited the property on 24.07.2004 and filed a suit with a claim for directing defendants to vacate the suit property and to restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. Simultaneously, a decree for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2004 was also sought, on the ground that the sale consideration has been paid to the defendants. Mesne profits @ 15,000/ -per month for unauthorized use and occupation of the property by the defendants was sought. A decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants and their agents, family members from selling, alienating or parting with the possession of the property was made.

(3.) This suit [Suit No.393/2004] (hereafter "the first suit") instituted by the Khannas was dismissed at the initial stage on an application of defendants made under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), by the Additional District Judge (ADJ), who held that the plaintiffs had not disclosed to the Court about execution of a Collaboration Agreement dated 18.05.2004 between Rajiv and the plaintiff. The plaintiffs' statement was recorded by the learned ADJ under Order X, CPC. The plaintiffs had stated that the signatures on the Collaboration Agreement dated 18.05.2004 appeared to be his, but he was unaware how the defendant obtained his signatures on the documents. The ADJ observed that by non -disclosure and non -production of the Collaboration Agreement, the plaintiffs had tried to overreach the Court and were guilty of withholding the information of this document and thus played fraud on the Court. The plaint in the first suit was rejected.