Delhi High Court
Ram Kishore And Anr. vs Smt. Shuva Devi & Ors. on 17 July, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ REVIEW PET. NO. 333/2015 in RSA 86/2014
% 17th July, 2015
RAM KISHORE AND ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Archana Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate
versus
SMT. SHUVA DEVI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. R. Rajan, Advocate with
Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate with
Respondent in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. Nos.12230/2015 & 12231/2015 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
REVIEW PET. NO. 333/2015
2. The present Review Petition is filed on the ground that liberty
was given by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.01.2015 in SLP
Nos.34952-34953/2014. This order of the Supreme Court dated 16.01.2015
reads as under:-
REVIEW PET.NO. 333/2015 Page 1 of 5
"O R D E R
Delay condoned.
The only point raised by the present petitioner(s) is that on the
basis of his signatures obtained on a blank paper by his counsel, the
Second Appeal was not pressed and the same was consequently
dismissed. If that is so, the petitioners are at liberty to move the High
Court by filing a review petition.
The Special leave petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid
liberty."
3. Review is sought of a consent order dated 19.03.2014 by which
the counsel for the appellant after arguing this Second Appeal filed under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against concurrent
judgments did not press the appeal on merits, but only sought time to vacate
the suit premises till 31.12.2014 for the appellants, and who are son and
daughter-in-law of the respondents/plaintiffs. The suit property is the
property bearing no. A-1, 60 Foota Road, Shri Ram Colony, Rajiv Nagar,
Delhi-110094 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). This consent
order dated 19.03.2014 not pressing the Second Appeal reads as under:-
"1. After arguments, counsel for the appellants on instructions from
the appellants states that the appeal be dismissed as not pressed but
the appellants be granted time till 31.12.2014 to vacate the suit
premises. It is also agreed that whatever electricity and water charges
are payable with respect to the portion in occupation of the
appellants/defendants, all such charges will be cleared till the
possession of the suit property bearing no.A-1, 60 Foota Road, Shri
Ram Colony, Rajiv Nagar Delhi-110094 is handed over to the
respondents/plaintiffs.
REVIEW PET.NO. 333/2015 Page 2 of 5
2. Let the appellants file an undertaking in terms of the present
order within a period of two weeks from today and on the appellants
filing the aforesaid undertaking and complying with the terms of the
same, appellants will not be evicted from the suit premises till
31.12.2014 in execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
Parties are left to bear their own costs." (underlining added)
4. It is unfortunate that the dishonest litigants pollute the stream of
justice for their own convenience.
5. The present appellants/review petitioners are such dishonest
litigants.
6. It is noted that there are two concurrent judgments against the
appellants. The Second Appeal was filed against the judgments of the courts
below decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs with respect to the
possession of the suit property having an area of 60 sq. yards.
Appellants/defendants were not vacating the suit property.
Appellants/defendants claim to have purchased the suit property from the
respondents/plaintiffs in terms of the documentation being the Gift Deed,
General Power of Attorney, Possession Letter and Affidavit all dated
25.03.2008. Admittedly, the Gift Deed is not registered and documents
relied upon by the appellants/defendants are dated 25.03.2008 i.e after the
amendment of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and other
REVIEW PET.NO. 333/2015 Page 3 of 5
related Sections of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable to Delhi, by Act
48 of 2001 w.e.f 24.09.2001. The effect of the amendments is that no benefit
of the doctrine of part performance was available with respect to the
documents executed on or after 24.09.2001 unless the documents were
stamped with 90% of the Sale Deed and were also registered.
7. This has also so been held by the Supreme Court in the
judgment reported as Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Haryana and Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656.
8. In view of the fact that the appellants/defendants had no case
and after arguments, which is noted in the order dated 19.03.2014, the
appellants/defendants did not press the appeal but only took time to vacate
the property till 31.12.2014.
9. The case laid down in the present Review Petition is that the
appellants have only signed blank papers and which were filed by the
counsel for the appellants/defendants as the Second Appeal, and therefore it
is said that a fraud has been played on the appellants/defendants. However,
this stand is only a self serving false stand which this Court refuses to
believe, and also because it is noted that from perusing the order dated
19.03.2014 that the SLP before the Supreme Court was filed so that it came
REVIEW PET.NO. 333/2015 Page 4 of 5
up in or around the expiry of the period granted to vacate the suit property
till 31.12.2014.
10. This Court is therefore not inclined to set aside the order dated
19.03.2014 especially when two concurrent judgments exist decreeing the
suit of the respondents/parents/plaintiffs for possession of the suit property.
As already noted above the Second Appeal was argued completely as stated
in the order dated 19.03.2014, and only after arguments at the stage of
dictation of judgment, the appellants/defendants did not press the appeal and
only took time for vacating the property.
11. In view of the above, this Review Petition has no merits
whatsoever and is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-.
C.M. No.12229/2015 (Stay)
12. The present application stands dismissed as the review petition
stands dismissed.
C.M. stands disposed of accordingly.
JULY 17, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
nn
