Citation : 2009 Latest Caselaw 554 Del
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2009
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: January 28, 2009
Date of Order: February 16, 2009
+ CS(OS) 1560 of 2008
% 16.02.2009
Jaswant Singh ...Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Kiran Suri with Mr. Purvesh Buttan & Ms. Aparna Bhat,
Advocates
Versus
Smt. Janki Devi ...Defendant
Through: Mr. Vineet Bahl, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration of sale
deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant as null and void and
thereafter cancellation of the sale deed dated 23rd January 2008 executed by
the plaintiff in favour of the defendant at the Sub Registrar's Office vide
Registration No.422, Additional Book No.1 Vol. 877, Pages 109 to 114.
2. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the value of the property transferred
by the virtue of the sale deed was Rs.95 lac and out of that Rs.25 lac was the
sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed and Rs.70 lac was to be paid in
cash by the defendant by the same evening. He took the plea that the
defendant played foul play and did not hand over the cash and also did not
handover the cheques as mentioned in the sale deed. The plaintiff has valued
CS (OS) 1560/2008 Jaswant singh vs. Smt. Janki Devi Page 1 Of 5 the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.95 lacs but for the purpose of
court fees, he has not valued the suit and stated that the Court fee paid at
Rs.20 only. While issuing summons of the suit, this Court had left the question
of court fee open and allowed registration of the instant plaint.
3. The statement of plaintiff under Order 10 CPC was recorded by this
Court on 13th January 2009. The statement tendered by the plaintiff is not in
conformity with the plea taken by the plaintiff in the suit. While in the suit,
the plaintiff has taken the plea that the sale deed was executed as a security
and the property was to be transferred back. In his statement under Order 10
CPC, he has not taken this stand and rather had taken the plea that he had
entered into an oral agreement initially and he had executed the sale deed
since he was under debt and he needed finance as they had to pay money to
State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Rajasthan Bank and Syndicate
Bank. The total money payable by him and his son to various banks was
around Rs.5 crore. He stated that he had mortgaged this property to
Allahabad Bank and the title deeds of the property were lying with Allahabad
Bank.
4. Some of the provisions of the sale deed executed by the plaintiff are as
under:
"NOW THIS SALE DEED WITNESSETH AS UNDER:
1. That the Vendor has received the entire sale consideration i.e. Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five only), from the Vendee, details are as under:
(i) Rs.6,25,000/- vide Cheque No.972401 dated 23.01.2008
(ii) Rs.6,25,000/- vide Cheque No.972402 dated 23.01.2008
(iii) Rs.6,25,000/- vide Cheque No.972403 dated 23.01.2008
(iv) Rs.6,25,000/- vide Cheque No.972404 dated 23.01.2008
CS (OS) 1560/2008 Jaswant singh vs. Smt. Janki Devi Page 2 Of 5 Drawn on Corporation Bank, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
which is full and final settlement, prior to the execution of this sale deed and the Vendor thereby admit and acknowledge the receipt of the same before the sub- registrar, Delhi, at the time of presentation/ registration of this Sale deed and the Vendor of his/ her fee will, sound, mind, good health and without any pressure and/or influence of any one, hereby sell, convey, transfer and assign the aforesaid property to and in the name of the Vendee free form all encumbrances, TO HAVE AND HOLD the same by the Vendee absolutely.
2. That in consideration of above amount, the Vendor do hereby absolutely assigns, sells, conveys and transfers all his/her rights of the ownership, titles and interests whatsoever in the said floor under sale, together with all ways, paths, passages, rights, benefits, easements, options, privileges and appurtenances thereto unto the said Vendee and the Vendee have hereinafter become the absolute owner of the above mentioned floor under the sale and the Vendee shall enjoy all the absolute and exclusive rights of ownership, titles and interest of the said floor without any interruption, disturbance and demand whatsoever from the Vendor or his heirs, successors, administrations, survivors and assignees etc.
3. That the Vendor has relinquished /released all his rights, title interest of the said floor in favour of the said vendee, in all respects and the vendor has no right, share, titles, interest, claims, concern, whatsoever in respect of the said floor and the Vendee have hereinafter become the sole and absolute complete owner of the said floor and she is at liberty to utilize, enjoy as per her ability to give the property to any one and or to sell the same as per her sweet will and in the manner she like.
4. That the vendor has delivered the vacant physical possession of the said ground floor without roof rights to the Vendee who has occupied the same.
5. That all dues and demands such as property tax, water and electricity bills, relating to above said floor of the said property upto the date of execution of this sale deed shall be paid and cleared by the vendor and thereafter the Vendee shall pay all such dues and taxes to the authorities concerned.
6. That all costs of stamps and registration fee of this
CS (OS) 1560/2008 Jaswant singh vs. Smt. Janki Devi Page 3 Of 5 sale deed have been paid and borne by the Vendee.
7. That the vendor has handed over all the Photostat copies of all the previous documents/title deeds of the entire floor of property to the Vendee for their records."
(emphasis added)
5. The statement of the plaintiff recorded in the Court also shows that the
plaintiff was a businessman and he had been in trading business from 1978 to
1998 and thereafter he started doing business of fabrication of readymade
clothes with his son. He was not an illiterate person and had working
knowledge of English language and could understand English. He had
understood the nature of documents before signing the same.
6. Since the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the sale
deed of a property worth Rs.95 lac, it is apparent that in order to avoid
payment of correct court fees for transferring back the property worth Rs.95
lac, he camouflaged the suit in the form of declaration that the deed was void
and was not binding on the plaintiff. In all such cases where cancellation or
voiding of the sale deed is sought, it implicitly amounts to a claim over the
property already sold and possessions delivered. Section 7 (iv) (c) of the
Court Fees Act would apply and the plaintiff is bound to pay the Court fees on
the valuation of the suit put by him for the purpose of jurisdiction. Plaintiff
cannot affixed a court fees of Rs.20 as levied by the plaintiff where the suit is
for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground of foul play or coercion or
undue influence, which comes within the ambit of Section 7(iv) (c). The Court
fee has to be paid on the valuation of the suit put by the plaintiff for the
purpose of jurisdiction only.
7. The contention of the plaintiff that defendant fraudulently made the
CS (OS) 1560/2008 Jaswant singh vs. Smt. Janki Devi Page 4 Of 5 plaintiff execute the sale deed, without payment of consideration, on the face
of it cannot be considered even for the purpose of Court fees, in view of
settled law that any amount of oral evidence cannot be considered by the
court when the parties have entered into a written contract and the written
contract will have the precedence. Where the sale deed, on the very face of it
had been duly executed and registered and title and possession have passed
to defendant by virtue of the sale deed, a declaration of sale deed being void,
would necessarily implicit cancellation of the sale deed and the consequential
relief of passing of title back to the plaintiff is implicit in the prayer and,
therefore, suit is governed by Section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act and not
by Schedule II, Article 17(3). In fact by filing this suit, the plaintiff has claimed
title over the property which, according to plaintiff if Rs.95 lac. Thus, the
plaintiff is liable to pay Court fees on this amount. The suit of the plaintiff is
thus liable to be rejected on the ground of non-payment of court fees.
However, the plaintiff is given a chance to pay the Court fee on the value of
Rs.95 lac, as put by the plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction, within three
weeks from today. In case the court fees is not paid within three weeks, the
suit is liable to be rejected on this ground.
8. List on 2nd April 2009.
February 16, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd CS (OS) 1560/2008 Jaswant singh vs. Smt. Janki Devi Page 5 Of 5
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!