Gopi Chand vs Seema Thakur & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4538 Del

*              THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CS (OS) 1541/2007

                                              Date of Decision: 01.10.2013

GOPI CHAND                                           ......PLAINTIFF

                          Through:      Mr. Praveen Khattar, Advocate

                                   Versus

SEEMA THAKUR & ANR.                                 ......DEFENDANTS
                Through:                Ex parte.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs) from the defendants.

2. The claim of recovery that is set up by the plaintiff comprises of (i) compensation amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs, (ii) amount of Rs. 6 lakhs paid to Panchi Devi, co-tenant in the suit shop for settling the litigations and

(iii) Rs. 2 lakhs allegedly spent on litigations. The plaintiff's case in nutshell is that he had purchased a shop being Shop No. 18/50, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi from the defendant No. 1 Seema Thakur, at the instance of the defendant No. 2 Vijay Kapoor on 31.05.2004 by way of registered documents such as GPA, Will etc. He submits that when he was getting the suit shop renovated in August 2004, other co-tenants of

the shop came there and started objecting and threatening him, for which he lodged the police complaint against them. He submits that he had been cheated by defendant No. 2 in getting effected the transaction of the shop with defendant No. 1, while there were other legal heirs of Kanshi Ram Thakur, the original tenant in the suit shop, as also of the defendant's No. 1 deceased husband Bansi Lal Thakur. The plaintiff has referred to the detailed history of the tenancy of the suit shop being in the name of Kanshi Ram Thakur, under whom the defendant No. 2 was employed in his proprietorship concern M/s. New Grand Bakery, and Kanshi Ram Thakur having died leaving behind legal heirs namely his wife Panchi Devi, sons Bansi Lal Thakur, Kishore Kumar Thakur and a daughter Neena Thakur. The plaintiff narrates that in a rent deposit petition filed by Bansi Lal Thakur against the owner of the shop namely Sh. P.N.Vij, the defendant No. 2 used to appear as his attorney and despite the fact that Bansi Lal Thakur expired on 5.10.2003 leaving behind legal heirs Seema Thakur (defendant No.1) and minor sons Karan Thakur and Kunal Thakur, defendant No. 2 appeared before the court of Rent Controller, in the said rent deposit petition as an attorney of the deceased Bansi Lal Thakur and filed application for impleadment of the legal heirs as also for the settlement with P.N.Vij. He submits that with the death of Bansi Lal Thakur, the power of attorney came to an end, and it was all manipulated by defendant No. 2, that he got impleaded Seema Thakur as the only legal heir of the deceased Bansi Lal Thakur to the exclusion of other legal heirs of Kanshi Ram and of Bansi Lal, and settled the matter with P.N.Vij, and ultimately got executed the transfer documents such as GPA, Will etc. by

P.N.Vij in favour of Seema Thakur on 31.05.2004, and also on the same day, got executed the documents of transfer from Seema Thakur in his name (plaintiff). He submits that based on these transfer documents dated 31.05.2004 executed by Seema Thakur in his favour, he got the suit shop made freehold from L&DO and it was only on 31.08.2004 that he learnt that there were other legal heirs of Kanshi Ram Thakur, who were the co- tenants along with Seema Thakur and this fact was concealed by the defendants. Then, he has narrated the various litigations that ensued between him and the other legal heirs as also criminal cases initiated by and against the defendant No. 2 and his wife. All these averments as regard to the generation of various civil as well as criminal cases are all alien to the instant suit. The plaintiff has narrated all these litigations just to highlight that he had to undergo these litigations and ultimately had to settle with the co-tenants Panchi Devi and others by paying them a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and further that he spent a lot of money and time in these litigations, and the compensation on this account has been quantified by him as Rs. 15 lakhs. In addition, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs allegedly spent in litigations for saving his title in suit shop.

3. The defendant No. 2 only contested the suit and filed his written statement. He, however, thereafter stopped appearing and was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit of ex parte evidence along with the copies of the documents comprising of all the litigations civil as well as criminal and also the orders passed by different courts in those proceedings.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and gone through the record.

5. From the perusal of the litigations that have taken place between the parties, I am clearly of the view that the plaintiff is not that clean and innocent as is sought to be projected by him. The plaintiff's foremost plea that the defendant No. 2 had represented as attorney of Bansi Lal in the rent deposit petition despite that the attorney had come to an end with the death of Bansi Lal Thakur, is noted only for rejection. The defendant No. 2 had been representing Bansi Lal Thakur as an attorney and on the demise of the former, it was his duty to inform the court about the legal heirs of the deceased. The settlement that was arrived at in the said case was between Seema Thakur as legal heir of Bansi Lal Thakur and the original owner P.N.Vij and there does not appear to be any impropriety if the defendant No. 2 at that time being attorney of the deceased was present when the applications for substitution of legal heirs and the settlement were disposed by the Rent Controller. These are all frivolous pleas which are taken by the plaintiff and merit no consideration at all.

6. The way the shop in question was purchased by the plaintiff from Seema Thakur on 31.05.2004, that itself as also his conduct, which would be discussed a little later, would show that the plaintiff was well aware of all the facts that Kanshi Ram Thakur was the tenant in the shop and was running business under the name of M/s. New Grand Bakery and

defendant No. 2, who as per the plaintiff's own saying was his trustworthy friend, was employee of Kanshi Ram Thakur. It is surprising to note that the plaintiff, who himself is a building contractor in the same area and knew that P.N.Vij was the owner of the shop, and that on the same day i.e. 31.05.2004 P.N.Vij had transferred the suit shop in favour of Seema Thakur by execution of various registered documents, and on the same day, he entered into an agreement with Seema Thakur and got the similar documents executed and registered in his favour. Both the transactions seem to have taken place at the same time. No normal and prudent man in the ordinary course of things would purchase any premises in such a manner, without verifying about the title and possession of the transferor, unless he himself was in connivance with the transferor. The plaintiff had proceeded to get the documents executed even without asking for the originals, which he tried to justify later by averring that those were misplaced or lost or stolen. When he knew that his friend defendant No. 2 was working at the bakery shop of Kanshi Ram Thakur, he would certainly be aware of the other legal heirs of Kanshi Ram Thakur namely his wife Panchi Devi, sons Kishore Kumar Thakur and daughter Neena Thakur beside Bansi Lal Thakur, or at least would be anxious to know or enquire the same. His conduct would further be noticed from the fact that on the one hand, there were various litigations initiated by him and Panchi Devi and others in the month of September 2004, and by wife of defendant No. 2 under Section 145 CrPC also in September, 2004, and then, he allegedly entered into another transaction with the defendant No. 2 in respect of the third floor of premises No. 35/15, Old Rajinder Nagar,

New Delhi. This would simply show that he was hand-in-glove with the defendant No. 2 right from the beginning. It was utterly unbelievable that it was only on September, 2005 that he learnt about Panchi Devi as being the legal heir of deceased Kanshi Ram Thakur and that too from the defendant No. 2 himself. It was extremely unbelievable that the defendant No. 2 with whom by now, he had developed strained relations would come and tell him in the September, 2005 that he had committed a fraud by dropping the name of Panchi Devi intentionally and deliberately from the list of legal heirs of Bansi Lal Thakur in order to settle the scores with Kanshi Ram Thakur. It is unbelievable that when he had filed a suit being CS(OS) 970/2004 on 06.09.2004 against the legal heirs of Kanshi Ram, and he along with Seema Thakur and P.N.Vij was facing a suit (being Suit No. 14104/2002) filed by Panchi Devi and the other legal heirs of Kanshi Ram and also a criminal complaint under Section 145 CrPC filed by wife of defendant No. 2 in September, 2004, that he would enter into a transaction with defendant No. 2 and his wife. In any case, at least, he had come to know about other legal heirs of deceased Kanshi Ram Thakur in September, 2004 and not as alleged in September, 2005 from defendant No. 2.

7. From the plaintiff's own averments as also the averments set out by defendant No. 2 in the written statement and the material available on record, it comes out to be that the plaintiff has purchased the suit shop on 'as is where is' basis knowing fully well about the existence of certain disputes with the original owner and also inter se disputes of legal heirs. If plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs to Panchi Devi as settlement or

compensation amount, it was a decision taken by him to give a quietus to the litigation. If at all, it is accepted that certain facts were concealed by defendants, he while purchasing a tenanted shop, was supposed to be aware of the same. And if at all, he was ignorant, he cannot take the advantage of his own ignorance. Without commenting as to whether the title in the shop acquired by the plaintiff was valid or not, I am definitely of the view that the plaintiff is not completely innocent, which he has tried to project. If at all, he has spent Rs.2.00 lakhs or some amount on litigations, it is also his own creation and no one can be blamed for that. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to substantiate his vague plea that he has spent a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs towards litigations. Similarly, the plaintiff's quantifying compensation for loss of time and business i.e. Rs. 15 lakhs, is all vague and unsubstantiated from the record. Thus, the plaintiff has no case at all and accordingly, the suit deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

OCTOBER 01, 2013/akb