Delhi High Court
Shri R.C.Goel And Others vs Shri Sunil Bedi And Others on 16 September, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 227/1997 & RFA 290/1997
% 16th September, 2011
1. RFA No. 227/1997
SHRI R.C.GOEL AND OTHERS ...... Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. L.K.Garg and Mr. Praveen
Jain, Advocates.
VERSUS
SHRI SUNIL BEDI AND OTHERS ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. B.S.Maan , Mr. Amit Maan,
Mr. Jai Prakash, Ms. Smita Maan
and Mr. Jitin Tewatia, Advocates
for R-1.
Mr. Pravir K. Jain and Mr. Manoj
Chauhan, Advocates for LRs. of
respondents no.2 and 3.
2. RFA No.290/1997
SH. SURAJ PRAKASH & ORS ....Appellants.
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. L.K.Garg and Mr. Praveen
Jain, Advocates.
VERSUS
SH. SUNIL BEDI & ORS. ....Respondents.
Through: Mr. B.S.Maan , Mr. Amit Maan,
Mr. Jai Prakash, Ms. Smita Maan
and Mr. Jitin Tewatia, Advocates
for R-1.
Mr. Pravir K. Jain and Mr. Manoj
Chauhan, Advocates for
respondents no.5 and 6.
RFA No.227/1997 & RFA 290/1997 Page 1 of 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to the
impugned judgment of the trial court dated 22.7.1997, and by which
judgment the court below dismissed the suit filed on behalf of the
appellants/plaintiffs for cancellation of two sale deeds dated 19.8.1994,
which the plaintiffs no.2 to 4 had executed in favour of the defendant
no.1.
2. The case as set up in the plaint was in two parts. First part of the
plaint pertains to the narration of facts qua the rights of plaintiff no.1,
who claimed that there was an Agreement to Sell in his favour by the
plaintiffs no. 2 to 4 and which Agreement to Sell was dated 22.5.1994.
In a way therefore, so far as plaintiff no.1 is concerned, he admittedly
did not have complete ownership title in the suit property but was only
a prospective purchaser under the Agreement to Sell dated 22.5.1994.
So far as the plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, the cause of action
averred in the plaint was that the sale deeds were got executed from
them by misrepresentation by the defendant no.1 inasmuch as it was
RFA No.227/1997 & RFA 290/1997 Page 2 of 5
represented that the defendant no.1 is the brother of the plaintiff no.1,
and on which representation, the sale deeds dated 19.8.1994 were said
to have been executed.
3. The trial court has dismissed the suit by observing that the sale
deeds cannot be said to have been executed by misrepresentation so as
to cause their cancellation. The trial court has also doubted the title of
the plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 inasmuch as, in the revenue record, the subject
land was found to be standing in the name of Smt. Praladi, Smt. Kela
and Smt. Shanti having 1/3rd share each.
4. I need not go into the merits of the controversy in this case in
view of the agreed stands of the parties before me. So far as the rights
of the plaintiff no.1 are concerned, it is agreed that the plaintiff
no.1/appellant no.1 has filed a suit for specific performance of his
agreement dated 22.5.1994 entered into between the appellant no.1
and the appellant nos. 2 to 4/plaintiff nos. 2 to 4. In this suit, the
present defendant no.1/respondent no.1 has also been made a
defendant and it is claimed that this defendant no.1/respondent no.1
would not have any right in the suit property by virtue of the fact that
the Agreement to Sell dated 22.5.1994 is prior in point of time and the
defendant no.1 is not a bonafide purchaser for value/consideration and
such issues and rights will be decided in that suit for specific
performance. I may note that an earlier Agreement to Sell prevails over
a subsequent sale by virtue of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act,
RFA No.227/1997 & RFA 290/1997 Page 3 of 5
1963, if it is held that the subsequent purchaser is not a bonafide
purchaser for value. That is an aspect which is not before me and is an
issue in the suit for specific performance, and in which, the same will be
decided uninfluenced by any observations made in today's order or in
the impugned judgment dated 22.7.1997. I may add here that the
plaintiff nos. 2 to 4/appellant nos. 2 to 4 herein are the defendants in
the suit for specific performance filed by present appellant no.1 and
these persons are not disputing the rights of the appellant no.1 herein
under the Agreement to Sell dated 22.5.1994.
5. It is also agreed between counsel for the parties that the
finding of the trial court be set aside that plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 were not
the owners of the properties. It is agreed by both the parties that
plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 were in fact, owners of the suit property.
6. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with the observations that
the judgment is sustained to the extent only that it is held that the sale
deeds dated 19.8.1994 have not been executed by any
misrepresentation made on behalf of respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in
collusion with the defendant no.2, however, the plaintiff no.1/appellant
no.1 herein and who is the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance,
and the defendant no.1 herein and who is also the defendant no.4 in the
suit for specific performance will be at complete liberty to raise all
defences/stands in that suit for specific performance, and that suit for
specific performance will be decided in accordance with the pleadings
RFA No.227/1997 & RFA 290/1997 Page 4 of 5
and the evidence in the said suit and nothing contained in the
impugned judgment dated 22.7.1997 will in any manner be a reflection
with respect to the merits of the cases of the respective parties in that
suit for specific performance. Whether or not the respondent no.1, and
who is also a defendant in the suit for specific performance, is or is not
a bonafide purchaser for value will be an issue which will be heard and
disposed of in the said suit for specific performance.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed subject
however to the aforesaid observations and is disposed of accordingly.
Trial court record be sent back.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
RFA No. 290/1997
Counsel for the parties agree that this appeal would also stand
disposed of in terms of the observations made while disposing of RFA
227/1997. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
