KULDEEP SHARMA Vs. SAVITA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of RSA No.3340 of 2019 and CR No.7051 of 2019 as decision of RSA would have material bearing on decision of Civil Revision.

(2.) The appellant and respondent are close relatives as respondent is the wife of brother in law (wife's brother) of appellant Kuldeep Sharma. The property in dispute is House No.A-40, IInd Floor, Faridabad (comprising two bed rooms, one drawing cum dining, one toilet and one kitchen having an area measuring 381 sq. yards situated at Ashoka Enclave Extension No.II, Faridabad. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration that he is absolute owner and in possession of the aforesaid property; impugned sale deed bearing document No.3609 dated 31.07.2002 regarding suit property is wrong, illegal, null, void, false, sham and bogus document and the same is not binding upon him. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit property was also prayed for.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that plaintiff entered into agreement to purchase the suit house with Arun Gupta son of TC Gupta resident of Faridabad, general power of attorney holder of Smt. Shashi Prabha Mazumdar vide agreement dated 25.04.2002 for sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs. He paid Rs.1.5 lakh as advance money through cheque No.102181 dated 25.06.2002 drawn on Global Trust Bank, New Delhi. The balance payment of Rs.3.5 lakhs was to be made on or before 05.07.2002. Later, with mutual consent of the parties, date for execution and registration of sale deed was extended upto 31.07.2002 and seller received another amount of Rs.1 lakh from the appellant without issuing any receipt and remaining amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- on account of stamp value etc. to husband of the defendant. The respondent/defendant with intention to grab money of the plaintiff, in collusion with registering authority, played fraud with the plaintiff. The husband of defendant instead of getting the sale deed executed in the name of plaintiff, got executed/registered sale deed dated 31.07.2002 in the name of defendant. The possession of suit property is still with the plaintiff since the date of its purchase, without any interference. Hence the suit.