BHAVNA KHANNA Vs. SUBIR TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit for possession of ground floor of E-236, East of Kailash, New Delhi along with pendente lite and future interest and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.9.60 lacs with effect from 24th December, 2014 till the date of filing of the suit and for future rent till the time of delivery of possession, pleading that; (i) Dr. Rachna Khanna, sister of the plaintiff was married to the defendant on 27th April, 1999; (ii) a Sale Deed dated 16th December, 2003 with respect to entire ground floor consisting of three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, drawing-cumdining, kitchen, front balcony and rear open space of property No.E-236, East of Kailash, New Delhi constructed over land ad-measuring 200 sq. yds. was executed in favour of Dr. Rachna Khanna, sister of the plaintiff; (iii) however, the entire consideration for purchase of the subject property was provided for by the father of the plaintiff and the said Dr. Rachna Khanna; (iv) the defendant and Dr. Rachna Khanna were however not residing on the said property and were residing elsewhere and the said property was let out at Rs.80,000/- per month; (v) in May, 2014 Dr. Rachna Khanna learnt of the defendant having an affair with another woman; (vi) the defendant, on the pretext of improving his relationship with Dr. Rachna Khanna, prevailed upon the father of the plaintiff and Dr. Rachna Khanna to allow the defendant, Dr. Rachna Khanna and their daughter to reside in the said property and which the father of the plaintiff allowed; (vii) since the said property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff and Dr. Rachna Khanna in the name of Dr. Rachna Khanna as security for Dr. Rachna Khanna, it was agreed between the family members that the said property would be gifted by Dr. Rachna Khanna to the plaintiff; (viii) the plaintiff's sister, Dr. Rachna Khanna in pursuance to the aforesaid, vide registered Gift Deed dated 24th December, 2014 gifted the property to the plaintiff, making the plaintiff absolute owner thereof; (ix) the sister of the plaintiff Dr. Rachna Khanna however on account of relationship with the plaintiff continued to reside on the property; (x) the defendant is using the property of the plaintiff for his extra-marital relationships; (xi) the plaintiff called upon the defendant to pay monthy rent of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff; and, (xii) the defendant however neither paid any amount nor vacated the property of the plaintiff.

(2.) The suit was entertained and summons thereof issued to the defendant.

(3.) The defendant has filed a written statement, pleading that (a) this suit for "possession and for mesne profits" is liable to be dismissed being barred as the defendant is the co-owner of the property and the plaintiff is a stranger to the property, having no right therein; (b) the Gift Deed dated 24th December, 2014 is a sham transaction and there has been no genuine transfer of the property from Dr. Rachna Khanna, being the wife of the defendant, in favour of the plaintiff; (c) the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as on 27th January, 2016 indicated the property to be registered in the name of Dr. Rachna Khanna; (d) Dr. Rachna Khanna even otherwise has been conducting herself as the owner of the property and the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with Dr. Rachna Khanna; (e) the plaintiff is merely a front for wife of the defendant; (f) the property was purchased by the defendant and was registered in the exclusive name of Dr. Rachna Khanna wife of the defendant, out of the defendant's love to secure his wife and further as less stamp duty was payable for the property registered in the name of a woman; the rest was paid in cash; (g) the wife of the defendant Dr. Rachna Khanna had no right to gift the property to the plaintiff without the consent and knowledge of the defendant; (h) the Gift Deed dated 24th December, 2014 is therefore null and void; (i) the fact that the Gift Deed is sham is also evident from the fact that Dr. Rachna Khanna wife of the defendant continues to take all decisions pertaining to the property and the defendant has been paying property tax of the property; (j) Dr. Rachna Khanna and her parents treated the defendant with cruelty and the defendant had filed "a suit for divorce on 26.08.2014" against his wife Dr. Rachna Khanna on the grounds of cruelty and adultery; (k) this suit has been filed as a counterblast to the divorce case and to the case filed by the grandmother of the defendant for eviction of the defendant and Dr. Rachna Khanna from the property of the grandmother; (l) only Rs.15.5 lacs out of the total purchase consideration of Rs.55 lacs of the subject property was paid from the account of Dr. Rachna Khanna and the balance amount was paid by the defendant in cash; (m) Dr. Rachna Khanna wife of the defendant has been indulging in various adulterous relationships; (n) the defendant and Dr. Rachna Khanna had agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and it was further agreed that they would sell the subject property and take 50% each of the sale proceeds but Dr. Rachna Khanna subsequently, out of greed changed her mind; and, (o) the property was not purchased with the funds of the father of the plaintiff and Dr. Rachna Khanna and thus the question of any family settlement does not arise.