Delhi High Court
Prem Nath Khanna vs Shailesh Bansal & Ors on 15 December, 2011
Author: G. S. Sistani
12
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1792/2009
PREM NATH KHANNA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Mr.VIneet Chaudhary, Advocate
versus
SHAILESH BANSAL & ORS ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.Anil Aggarwal and Ms.Rekha Sharma,
Advocates for defendant no.2
Mr.R.P. Vats and Ms.Reema, Advocates
for defendants No.7, 8, 9 & 10
Mr.Sanjeev Rajpal, Adv for defendt no.11
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
ORDER
% 15.12.2011
IA.12277/2009
This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the plaint.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing the plaint is
condoned. Application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 1792/2009
Plaintiff has filed present suit for declaration, inter alia declaring the sale
deed dated 17.07.2008, as null and void. The necessary facts which led to filing
of the present suit are that the plaintiff is a senior citizen and is stated to be
lawful owner of one and a half storey house bearing No.142, Bhera Enclave,
New Delhi, admeasuring 301.45 sq. yds. (hereinafter called as „the suit
property‟). The said property was purchased by the plaintiff from Bhirochi Co-
operative Housing Society Limited on 03.01.1979. The purchase of the above
plot was sanctioned by the S.S.W. (NDZ) E 1/P6-683/4201 dated 28.05.1990
and since then the plot stands in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is stated
to be in the exclusive possession of the suit property. Copies of the Election
Card, PAN card and the Income-tax Returns of the plaintiff have been filed on
record. As per the plaint, Defendant no.1, Sh.Shailesh Bansal impersonated
himself as the plaintiff in all his transactions with respect to the suit property in
connivance with the tenant of the plaintiff in order to cause loss to the plaintiff.
A fraudulent sale deed was executed on 17.07.2008 by the defendant no.1 in
favour of defendant no.2.
Counsel for the defendant no.2 submits that he has instructions to say that
defendant no.1 impersonated himself as the plaintiff and has misled defendant
no.2 into purchasing the suit property and he got trapped of the fraudulent
transaction, and has drawn attention of the court to paragraph 10 of the written
statement. Paragraph 10 of the written statement filed by defendant no.10, read
as under:
"10. That the contents of Para No.10 of the plaint are
admitted to the extent that the defendant no.1 - Mr.Shailesh
Bansal impersonating himself to be Mr.Prem Nath Khanna
and the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing
No.142, Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and has
sold the same to the plaintiff by Sale Deed duly executed in
the office of Sub-Registrar on 17.07.2008. The defendant
No.1 having various documentary evidence showing his
identity to be Mr.Prem Nath Khanna, the original documents
which were mortgaged with the Punjab National Bank were
also got released by the defendant no.1 under the name of
Mr.Prem Nath Khanna. The answering defendant paid a
cheque for Rs.75 lacs as value of the said property in
CS(OS) 1792/2009 2/4
favour of Mr.Prem Nath Khanna and the same was deposited
by the defendant no.1 in his account, which he was operating
under the name of Mr.Prem Nath Khanna. In such
circumstances the answering defendant purchase the said
property under the bona fide belief though mistaken as
defendant no.1. It is further submitted that apart from
documentary evidence the defendant no.1 - Mr.Shailesh
Bansal also shown the physical possession of the said
premises prior to the sale deed and assured to handover the
physical vacant possession to the answering defendant. The
answering defendant has suffered huge financial losses and
for that she has already filed a suit for recovery against the
defendant no.1."
Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no.2 submits that he has no
objection if the sale deed in question dated 17.07.2008 is cancelled, without
prejudice to his rights to recover and to claim the sale consideration paid by him
from defendant no.1.
Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no.11, Commissioner, Income-
tax Department, East Block-II, Level -III, R.K. Puram, Delhi, submits that a
decree may be passed in terms of prayer (d), declaring the PAN Card
No.BBYPK 5383G, to be illegal and forged. Counsel for defendant no.11, has
drawn attention of the court to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the written statement filed
by defendant no.11. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the written statement of defendant
no.11, read as under:
"11. It is submitted that from the records available in the office of
answering defendant the following details are being provided:
PAN AAIPK9170F is in the name of Sh.Prem Nath Khanna, in the
status of Individual and was allotted on 29.03.1997. The data was
collected from the PAN application i.e. Form 49A which is
available in the system.
CS(OS) 1792/2009 3/4
PAN BBYPK5383G is in the name of Sh.Prem Nath Khanna which
has the status of Individual. This PAN was allotted by M/s.NSDL.
4. That the returns stated to have been filed for the AY 2004-
2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 have been filed by PAN No. -
AAPNK 2305A which upon verification has been found to be
bogus and invalid."
Counsel for defendant no.11, prays that decree in terms of prayers (d), (e),
(f), (g), (h) and (i) may be passed.
Counsel for the plaintiff on instructions from the plaintiff, who is present
in court submits that present suit may be decreed in above terms. Accordingly,
in view of the stand taken by counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated
above present suit is decreed in terms of paras (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). Since
the bank account has been opened on the basis of the forged documents, the suit
is also decreed in terms of prayers (j), (k) and (l). Sale deed dated 17.07.2008
stands cancelled. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
G.S.SISTANI,J
DECEMBER 15, 2011
ssn
CS(OS) 1792/2009 4/4
