Delhi High Court
Gaurav Goel vs Shiv Shankar Singhal on 30 October, 2018
$~A-14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30.10.2018
+ CS(OS) 468/2018
GAURAV GOEL ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
versus
SHIV SHANKAR SINGHAL ..... Defendant
Through Mr.S.C.Singhal and Mr.Yashwant,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
% 30.10.2018
IA No.12814/2018
1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking an
ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants,
legal heirs, attorneys, representative, employee, friends associates etc. from
parting with possession or creating any third party interest in respect of the
land in Khasra Nos.24/2 (2-10) and 27/1 (1-1), Village Masudabad,
Najafgarh, New Delhi and the land admeasuring 650 Sq.Yds bearing No.21-
30, Lala Rati Ram Park, Tuda Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration
declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises being 710 Sq.
Yds. out of Khasra Nos.24/2(2-10), 27/1(1-1) at Village Masudabad,
Najafgarh, New Delhi and 160 Sq. Yds. of land out of land admeasuring 650
Sq.Yds. bearing Nos.21-30, Lala Rati Ram Park, Tuda Mandi, Najafgarh,
New Delhi. Other connected reliefs are also sought.
CS(OS) 468/2018 Page 1
3. It has been pleaded in the plaint that in 2001 the defendant
approached and represented to the plaintiff's mother Late Smt.Neena Goel,
i.e., defendant's sister that defendant is having a good offer of a piece of
land and if money is invested it will fetch good returns in future. The
defendant requested the plaintiff's mother to lend him Rs.1,40,000/- which
he promised to return to her within a period of one year. The plaintiff's
mother trusted the defendant and gave her cash and jewellery worth
Rs.1,40,000/- (One Lakh Forty Thousand). The plaintiff's mother was a
government servant. On 06.06.2001, the defendant purchased land
measuring 2 bighas 4 biswas (2200 Sq.Yds) bearing Khasra Nos.24/2(1-3),
27/1(1-1) situated in Village Masudabad, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The
defendant was however unable to pay the bank loan. The defendant offered
to the plaintiff's mother to pay interest at rate of 2% per month,
compounded monthly, on the loan amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. The defendant
however remained in default.
4. In January, 2009 the defendant offered to transfer 1350 Sq. Yds. of
land out of land admeasuring 2 bighas 4 biswas (2200 Sq.Yds.) bearing
Khasra No.24/2(1-3) and 27/1(1-1) situated in Village Masudabad,
Najafgarh, New Delhi to the plaintiff's mother in lieu of the loan of
Rs.1,40,000/- and interest accrued thereon. The plaintiff's mother agreed to
the same and she bequeathed the said land in favour of the plaintiff by
WILL dated 14.03.2009. On 10.01.2010, plaintiff's mother has died.
5. In October, 2011 the plaintiff shifted to the residence of the defendant
and continued to reside there till September 2013. Even the marriage of the
plaintiff was performed from the residence of the defendant.
CS(OS) 468/2018 Page 2
6. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has a right/interest in the land measuring
2 bighas 4 biswas (2200 Sq. Yds.) bearing Khasra No. 24/2(1-3) and 27/1(1-
1) situated in Village Masudabad, Najafgarh, New Delhi. In January, 2016 it
is pleaded that defendant in lieu of 640 Sq.Yds. of land out of Khasra No.
27/1(1-1) situated in Village Masudabad, Najafgarh, New Delhi offered 160
Sq.Yds. of land out of land measuring 650 Sq.Yds. bearing Nos.21-30, Lala
Rati Ram Park, Tuda Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Since it is built up, it
culminates into entire ground floor and one-fourth of the basement. The
plaintiff agreed to this offer of 160 Sq.Yds. of land. This in sum and
substance is the case for filing of the present suit seeking title to the suit
property.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently relied upon a
recorded conversation with the defendant where the defendant has stated
that the said property belongs to the plaintiff.
9. Other than a mere alleged oral promise by the defendant that the said
land/property belongs to the plaintiff, there is no document or title deed
executed in favour of the plaintiff. Based on a recorded conversation and
alleged assurances of the defendant, the plaintiff seeks declaration of title
stating him to be the owner in respect of the suit property.
10. At this stage, it is appropriate to extract the relevant provision of the
Registration Act.
11. Section 17(1) of the Registration Act reads as follows:
"Section 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.
(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the
properties to which they relate is situate in a district in which,
CS(OS) 468/2018 Page 3
and if they have been executed on or after the date on which,
Act No. XVI of 1864, of the Indian Registration Act 1866, or
the Indian Registration Act 1871, or the Indian Registration Act
1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:-
(a) Instruments of gift of immoveable property;
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate
to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present
or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or
contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards, to
or in immoveable property;
(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the
receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the
creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any
such right, title or interest; and
(d) leases of immoveable property from year to year, or for any
term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;
(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any
decree or order of a court or any award when such decree or
order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign,
limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right,
title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of
one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immoveable property
(Added by Act No. 21 of 1929);
...................."
12. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as follows:-
"49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be
registered.--No document required by section 17 1[or by any
provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to
be registered shall--
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such
property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered
[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable
property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act,
CS(OS) 468/2018 Page 4
1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of
a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of
the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) 55, 56 [***] or as
evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected
by registered instrument.]"
13. Hence, under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 mandates all
non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare,
assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or
interest, whether vested or contingent, to or in immoveable property is
required to be registered. Section 49 of the Registration Act imposes bar on
the admissibility of an unregistered deed/document that are required under
Section 17 of the Registration Act to be registered.
14. It is clear that oral assurance of transfer of title would prima facie not
convey any right in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff has
failed to make out a prima facie case. There is no merit in the present
application and the same is dismissed.
CS(OS) 468/2018
15. List before Joint Registrar for completion of admission-denial of
documents on 05.12.2018.
16. List in court on 14.02.2019 when IA No.14400/2018 would be heard
and issues would also be framed on that date.
17. In the meantime, the defendant may file rejoinder to the reply filed by
the plaintiff to IA No.14400/2018.
JAYANT NATH, J.
OCTOBER 30, 2018/v
CS(OS) 468/2018 Page 5
