JAI PAL SINGH SHISODIA Vs. POONAM RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has instituted the suit for possession of property bearing No. 753 admeasuring 200 sq yrds out of Khasra No 305/212 situated in the area of village Shakarpur Khas in abadi of Ganesh Nagar, Ilaka Shahdara, Delhi. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the land underneath the said property vide registered sale deed dated 4th September, 1970 in his favour; the defendant no. 1 is the daughter of the sister (Smt Vidya Wati) of the plaintiff; the plaintiff permitted his other sister Smt Kailash Devi who was issueless to reside in the said property; the defendant No. 1 also started residing with the said Smt Kailash Devi; Smt Kailash Devi died on 20th December, 1985 and her husband Shri Bhavnish Chandra Chauhan died on 5th January, 1996. The plaintiff, thereafter, requested the defendant No. 1 to vacate the property but the defendant No. 1 did not vacate in spite of assurances; that some time in 1991 the defendant No. 1 had made a proposal for purchase of the property on the then prevailing price and the plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney dated 12th April, 1991 in favour of the defendant No. 1 to deal with pre-sale affairs of the property under the bona fide belief that the defendant No. 1 shall pay the sale consideration; that besides the general power of attorney dated 12th April, 1991 the plaintiff had also executed a Will dated 12th April, 1991 in favour of the defendant No. 1; that the GPA being without consideration did not confer any right in the property on the defendant No. 1; that in early 1996 the close relatives of the parties affected a compromise dated 4th February, 1996 between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 according to which the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 were to own the said property in equal share with the defendant no. 1 having a right of pre-emption; that the defendant No. 1 did not act upon the compromise of 4th February, 1996 and again the "arbitrators" on 24th February, 1996 with the consent of the parties assessed the value of the property at Rs 23 lacs and the defendant No. 1 was to pay Rs 11,50,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 15th March, 1996, out of which the defendant No. 1 paid a sum of Rs 1 lac only as earnest money and failed to pay the balance monies. The plaintiff, thus, claimed to have become entitled to possession of the property from the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff further claimed the relief of declaration of the compromise dated 4th February, 1996 and 24th February, 1996 as null and void. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant No. 1 had with malafide intention started making efforts to sell the property on the basis of the GPA and Will dated 12th April, 1991 and thus the plaintiff vide notice dated 18th April, 1996 cancelled the said GPA and Will but the defendant No. 1, on the basis of revoked GPA and Will dated 12th April, 1991, had executed collusive sale deed dated 22nd May, 1996 with respect to the said property in favour of the defendant No. 2 who is the husband of the sister of the husband of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff also claimed the relief of permanent injunction and mesne profits against the defendants.

(2.) THE defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing a written statement. The case of the defendant No. 1 is that she is the adopted daughter of Smt kailash Devi and Shri Bhavnish Chandra Chauhan; that Shri Bhavnish Chandra chauhan had purchased the land under the suit property benami in the name of the plaintiff; that Shri Bhavnish Chandra Chauhan only had raised construction on the said land and was always in possession of the said property; that the plaintiff had executed a deed of relinquishment dated 10th October, 1986 with respect to the said property in favour of Shri Bhavnish Chandra Chauhan and for the said reason only had executed the power of attorney and Will both dated 12th april, 1991 in favour of the defendant No. 1 as the daughter of Shri Bhavnish chandra Chauhan; that however the plaintiff became dishonest after the death of shri Bhavnish Chandra Chauhan and started claiming ownership of the property and the defendant No. 1 was compelled against her wishes to sign the compromise dated 4th February, 1996 and 24th February, 1996 (supra) without any consideration; that the document dated 24th February, 1996 was retained by the plaintiff only and no copy was given to the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff had tampered with the said documents and changed the figure of Rs 3 lacs as the total value of the property and figure of Rs 1,50,000/- as the amount to be paid by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff to Rs 23 lacs and Rs 11,50,000/-respectively; that the defendant No. 1, pursuant to the compromise dated 24th february, 1996, had agreed to sell the property to the defendant No. 2 and had out of the advance received from the defendant No. 2 paid a sum of Rs 1 lac to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was well aware of the sale of the property by the defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 joined the plaintiff in claiming that the documents dated 4th February, 1996 and 24th february, 1996 be declared as null and void. The defendant No. 1 also denied that the plaintiff had given any notice dated 18th April, 1996 of revocation of gpa and Will and claimed that the said notice was sent by the plaintiff only on 8th July, 1996 i. e. , after the sale by the defendant No. 1 of the property to the defendant No. 2 on 22nd May, 1996 on the basis of the said GPA and the Will.

(3.) THE plaintiff in his replication took a stand that the defendant No. 1 was in collusion with the defendant No. 2; the plaintiff denied knowledge that the defendant No. 1 was the adopted daughter of Shri Bhavnish Chandra Chauhan. He denied execution of a relinquishment deed dated 10th October, 1986; he denied that the documents dated 4th February, 1996 and 24th February,1996 are void (even though the plaintiff himself had sought declaration to the said effect); he reiterated that the total price of Rs 23 lacs was settled for the property; he denied that he was the benami owner of the property or that Shri Bhavnish chandra Chauhan was the real owner of the property. He admitted receipt of Rs 1 lac from the defendant No. 1 and claimed that the defendant No. 1 had failed to pay the balance Rs 10,50,000. The defendant No. 1 reiterated that the GPA and the will were revoked on 18th April, 1996, i. e. before the sale by the defendant no. 1 to the defendant No. 2 on 22nd May, 1996.