MADAN LAL ARORA Vs. SHIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In furtherance to our order dated 9th February, 2007, learned counsel appearing for the appellant had placed on record the requisite documents including pleadings of the suit.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant at some length. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration, possession and in the alternative suit for redemption with possession and other reliefs being Suit No.3/2006. He claimed these reliefs on the basis of the fact that he had purchased a shop measuring 8' X 30' forming part of property bearing No.X/140 (New) and Old No.274/1, out of Khasra No.72 situated in the abadi of Tagore Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, for the consideration of Rs.95,000/- from one Shri Amarnath Nagpal S/o Shri Ram Narain Nagpal, who had executed General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter and Deed of Will all dated 26th March, 1999 in favour of the plaintiff. He claimed absolute right and title in the said property/shop. The plaintiff claimed that apart from the said property, he also purchased a flat on the first floor and another flat on the 2nd floor forming part of property bearing No.63 at Gobind Park, Delhi-51 through the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the respondent/defendant had induced him and made him drug addicted in course of the period. Resultantly, the plaintiff had to go for medical treatment during the period March-April, 2000. The plaintiff was admitted in All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi on 15th April, 2000 and was discharged on 23rd June, 2000. He became a person of an unsound mind as a result of drug addiction and was incapable of understanding any documents. According to him, the entire original documents pertaining to the said property were lying with the defendant from the day of the purchase of the said property as the plaintiff had extreme trust in the defendant. However, the defendant had acted in a manner unbecoming of a friend and claimed himself to be the mortgagee of the said property. The plaintiff claimed in possession of the flat at first floor, 63, Gobind Park, Delhi but all the original documents pertaining to said flat were lying with the defendant. The defendant also claimed himself to be the mortagagee of the flat at 2nd floor, 63, Gobind Park, Delhi-53. The defendant got a case registered against the plaintiff in connivance with the police under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. The defendant before the Special Executive Magistrate, East District, Delhi on 3rd May, 2001 deposed that he had, in pursuance of the Agreement dated 4.4.2000, advanced an amount of Rs.3,71,000/- on interest to the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that possession of the property was being taken by the defendant illegally. He was of an unsound mind at the time of execution of Agreement dated 4.4.2000. The plaintiff had requested the defendant to treat the said agreement dated 4th April, 2000 as null and void but the defendant was adamant to create third party interest and delivering the possession of the said property to a third party. In the plaint the plaintiff had stated that he had earlier filed a suit for possession, cancellation of documents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Delhi but the said suit was dismissed by Civil Judge, Delhi vide judgment and decree dated 28th March, 2005. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that he had never sold the property to the defendant and the agreement-cum-mortgage deed was inconsequential. He gave details of aforesaid properties in the plaint. The plaintiff claimed redemption of the property as well as relief of possession in terms of order 34 CPC. It was stated that no interest was payable on the sum of Rs.3,71,000/-.

(3.) The following reliefs were prayed for in the plaint :-