RAJENDER SINGH Vs. PREM CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.4 who is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed and the transfer of plot by defendants No.1 & 2, HUDA, in favour of defendant No.3, Rachna Jaiswal and further by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4, the present appellant, Major Rajender Singh, has been set aside and the plaintiff has been declared owner of the plot and the defendants have been directed to hand-over the possession of the plot to the plaintiff. It was further directed that the amount which has been deposited with defendant No.3 or defendant No.4 towards the price of the plot with HUDA shall be refunded by the plaintiff with interest @ 15 % per annum and the amount which has been paid by defendant No.4 to defendant No.3 shall be paid back to defendant No.4 at the same rate of interest by defendant No.3. It has also been ordered that G.D.Bansal and O.P.Chahal, property dealers had committed fraud and it would be failure of justice if their role is not investigated and prosecuted, if found guilty and therefore, liberty had been given to defendants No.3 & 4 to get a case registered to bring the impersonators and cheaters to book along with officials of HUDA whose role needs to be investigated.

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondent No.1-Smt.Prem Chopra filed a suit for declaration that she had applied for allotment of a residential plot initially in Sector 6 and 12-A, Gurgaon and deposited 10% of the tentative price amounting to Rs. 2174/- for 6 marla plot (135 Sq.metres) along with application form No.3196 dated 31.10.1981 (Exhibit PW 1/1). Subsequently, the proposal to allot plots in the said sectors was dropped by HUDA and the applicants who had applied for allotment of plots in said sector were given option for allotment of plots in Sector 22, Gurgaon and the application for allotment of plots in the said sector were to be sent upto 22.05.1984 as per advertisement in the newspaper wherein persons who had already deposited earnest money for allotment of plot in Sector 6 and 12-A, Gurgaon and had not withdrawn the same, were entitled for consideration. Accordingly, the plaintiff, in pursuance of the said application, submitted application No.66775 dated 20.05.1984 (Exhibit PW 1/2) along with an amount of Rs. 585/- in cash deposited with the Syndicate Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for making good the deficiency in 10% of the tentative sale price of 6 marla plot in Sector 22, Gurgaon.

(3.) ON no information being received by defendant No.2 of further development in the matter, the plaintiff and her husband made enquiries in the office of defendant No.2 but they were told that the matter has not been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court so far. In the month of April, 1995, when the plaintiff again went to the office of defendant No.2 and made enquiries about the latest position, she was told that plot No.856 Sector 22, Gurgaon had already been transferred to Mrs.Rachna Jaiswal, defendant No.3 by some lady posing herself to be the plaintiff and defendant No.3, subsequently transferred the said plot in the name of defendant No.4, Major Rajender Singh and at present, the said plot had been allotted in the name of defendant No.4 in the records of defendants No.1 & 2. The enquiries further revealed that defendant No.2 had sent a letter at the address of the plaintiff, i.e., H.No.21/32, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi but the letter was received back in the office of defendant No.2 as undelivered with report about the shifting of plaintiff from the given address to some other place. However, enquiries was made by the plaintiff and her husband in the office of HUDA regarding the transfer of plot No.856, Sector 22, Gurgaon and it was revealed that some persons had impersonated the plaintiff, and by practing fraud on the officials of defendant Nos.1 & 2 or in collusion with the said officials, had arranged to get the plot transferred in the name of defendant No.3 and on the basis of the same, transferred the plot fraudulently by impersonating another lady in place of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also contacted defendant No.3 and enquired about the said transfer of plot but she could not tell or disclose the name of such persons and told that in fact, the same was transferred by some other property dealer but she refused to tell the name of the said property dealer. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the transfer had been done by fraudulent means and there was also an affidavit in the records of defendant No.2 which was purported to be signed by Mrs.Prem Chopra and it was alleged that the plaintiff neither signed any affidavit nor made an application before defendant No.2 for transfer of the plot in question and the said transfer was with collusion of the officials of defendant No.2 and due to the negligence in ascertaining the identity of the plaintiff and without making an enquiry about the correct address and without sending the letter of intimation on the said letters under registered covers in order to ensure the identity of such imposter or the person who alleged herself to be Mrs.Prem Chopra. It was on the said cause of action, it was held out that the plaintiff could not be made out to suffer on account of such fraudulent act or illegal collusion by the officials of defendant No.2 or on account of the gross negligence in ascertaining the correct identity of the initial allottee of plot No.856 of Sector 22, Gurgaon. Accordingly, the decree for declaration was asked for on the ground that the transfer in the name of defendant No.3 had not got any valid right or title and similarly, transfer of plot to defendants No.3 & 4 did not create any valid right, title or interest in favour of defendants No.3 & 4. The plaintiff asked the defendants to comply with the demand of the plaintiff and on refusing to the same, the suit had been filed.