Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1360 (DEL)

Siri Bhagwan v. V. R. M. Estates Pvt. Ltd.

2015-05-18

INDERMEET KAUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : CS (OS) 2670/2014 1. Present suit has been filed by plaintiff seeking cancellation of release deed dated 13.11.2006 purported to have been executed by him in favour of defendant No. 2. The averments in the plaint disclose that plaintiff was co-owner and in actual cultivatory possession of 2/9th share in agricultural land in Khasra No. 852 (4-16) situated in revenue estate of Village Rajokari, New Delhi. Defendant No. 2 offered to purchase this portion of the land of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1 crore and an amount of Rs. 30 lacs was given as advance and the balance amount was agreed to be paid by the defendant within 12 months. Parties went to the office of Sub-registrar where a sum of Rs. 30 lacs was tendered by way of cheque dated 13.11.2006 to the plaintiff as the earnest money. The plaintiff was an illiterate person; he was not well versed in the English language. He signed the agreement which was duly registered. However the plaint discloses that the plaintiff was not aware of the contents of the documents and he was misled into believing that it was only a deed of agreement but it was actually a release deed. He learnt about this fact on 10:9.2013 when he appeared before the Tehsildar. He was informed that the suit land was mutated. He had in fact given his objection to the Registrar. Prayer made in the plaint is that the release deed is liable to be set aside. The second objection which has been taken by the plaintiff is about the mutation of the land; submission being that this suit is barred by virtue of Section 33 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and such a transaction is even otherwise void ab initio. 2. Written statement was filed by defendants objecting to the prayers made in the plaint. Submission being that the plaint is liable to be dismissed. Replication was also filed. 3. The plaintiff has appeared in person. His statement under Order 10 of the CPC has been recorded separately. 4. Learned Counsel for defendants has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the plaintiff which was recorded before the Tehsildar on 10.9.2013. Submission being that the plaint is liable to be dismissed. Replication was also filed. 3. The plaintiff has appeared in person. His statement under Order 10 of the CPC has been recorded separately. 4. Learned Counsel for defendants has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the plaintiff which was recorded before the Tehsildar on 10.9.2013. This is a document in Hindi which has been recorded of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff has admitted that on 13.11.2006 he had entered into a release deed which was registered with the Sub-registrar. As pointed out by learned Counsel for the defendants, the averments in the plaint however in contradiction to the documentary evidence which is the document dated 13.11.2006 as also the statement of plaintiff which has been recorded on oath in the Court today. 5. Averments contained in paras 4 & 5 of plaint have been perused. In this part of the plaint, it has been clearly stated that some thumb impression and signatures of the plaintiff were obtained on some typed papers which the plaintiff could not understand as he was not well versed in the English language. His averment discloses that it was only a deed of agreement which was registered. It was reiterated that the contents of the same were not known to him. The statement of plaintiff recorded on 10.9.2013 before the Tehsildar is however contrary. In this statement, the plaintiff admits that he had entered into this release deed on 13.11.2006. Even before this Court, he admitted that he had entered into this document dated 13.11.2006 which was signed by him and registered. His further submission is that he has to take the balance amount of Rs. 70 lacs out of the total amount of Rs. 1 crore for which the deed was struck. 6. Admittedly, there is no document in support of this plea that the transaction was for Rs. 1 crore. The document dated 13.11.2006 speaks of a sale consideration of Rs. 30 lacs, which had admittedly been paid to the plaintiff on the same date by way of a cheque. Possession of land had also been handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant. All this is recorded in the aforenoted document. 7. The plaintiff appears to be taking contrary and confusing pleas. 30 lacs, which had admittedly been paid to the plaintiff on the same date by way of a cheque. Possession of land had also been handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant. All this is recorded in the aforenoted document. 7. The plaintiff appears to be taking contrary and confusing pleas. In the plaint, he discloses that he was not aware of the release deed dated 13.11.2006; he had thought that it was only a deed of agreement. He had agreed to sell his land for Rs. 1 crore of which only Rs. 30 lacs had been obtained by him. The documentary evidence however speaks otherwise. Documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff shows that land in question was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 30 lacs and the said amount has been received by him from the defendant. In fact he had handed over the physical possession of land to the defendant on receipt of said amount. In the statement recorded before Tehsildar on 10.9.2013, he admitted that he had executed the document dated 13.11.2006. In Court today, he has again admitted about the execution of the document dated 13.11.2006. 8. Thus, the submission of the plaintiff that he only learnt in the first week of September, 2013 about this release deed when he got a notice from the Patwari for the mutation proceedings is clearly a wrong submission. The plaintiff had clear knowledge about the release deed dated 13.11.2006 on the date of its execution as is clear from his statement made before the Tehsildar on 10.9.2013. The plaintiff is bound by the law of limitation. If he had to challenge this release deed 13.11.2006, he had to do so within a period of three years from the date of its execution as is evident from Article 59 Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is not a mixed question of fact and law as is the argument of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. The suit is barred by limitation. 9. That apart, there is no cause of action as the plaintiff submits that he was to take balance amount of Rs. 70 lacs and he received only a sum of Rs. 30 lacs in terms of this document is again a plea which is unsupported by any documentary evidence. The suit is barred by limitation. 9. That apart, there is no cause of action as the plaintiff submits that he was to take balance amount of Rs. 70 lacs and he received only a sum of Rs. 30 lacs in terms of this document is again a plea which is unsupported by any documentary evidence. The plaintiff states that defendant No. 2 had agreed to pay this balance sum of Rs. 70 lacs within a period of 12 months from 13.11.2006, which period expired on 12.11.2007. Present suit has been filed on 26.8.2014. The plaintiff candidly admits that he slept over the matter till 2014 and only verbal communications had been made by him to defendant No. 2 asking for the balance amount of Rs. 70 lacs but there is not a single document to support this submission. At the cost of repetition, the document dated 13.11.2006 speaks of a total consideration of Rs. 30 lacs for the sale of the aforenoted land which amount has since been paid by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff. No cause of action has thus accrued in favour of plaintiff. Prayer (c) of plaint which reads herein as under ‘Declare the plaintiff as owner of 2/9 share in land bearing Khasra No. 852 (4-16) situated in the revenue estate of Village Rajokari, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, Distt. New Delhi;’ also cannot be answered as this would be within the domain of the Revenue Courts and a declaration that the plaintiff be declared owner of 2/9th in the aforenoted suit land cannot be answered by this Court. This is clear in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the matter of 1970 (2) SCC 841 , Hatti v. Sunder Singh. Bar of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act would operate. The last submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that Section 33 of the DLRA is in his favour and this land in fact could not have been mutated in favour of the defendants is again a prayer which cannot be gone into by this Court as a contravention of the provisions of Section 33 are contained in Section 42 and the Schedule attached to the DLRA clearly shows that such a suit will lie before the Revenue Assistant. Reliance by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff on the judgment of II (2001) SLT 109 = (2001) 3 SCC 24 , Shri Ram v. 1st Additional District Judge is misplaced in the factual matrix of this case as this Court has already noted that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. This judgment would not be applicable. Suit is dismissed. IA No. 16933/2014 (under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2); and IA No. 21628/2014 (under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC) Applications having become infructuous are disposed of.