D.R. Vadera & Sons (Huf) vs Mrs. Sita Nanda
2019 Latest Caselaw 3556 Del

$~36
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                        Date of Decision: 1st August, 2019
+               CS(OS) 650/2018, I.A. 17525/2018 & 830/2019
       D.R. VADERA & SONS (HUF)                          ..... Plaintiff
                     Through: Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Mr. Shiv Chopra
                                 and Ms. Smriti Ravichandran,
                                 Advocates.
                     versus

       MRS. SITA NANDA                                 ..... Defendant
                     Through:        Mr. Ashwini K. Matta, Sr. Advocate
                                     with Mr. Vijay K. Sondhi, Mr. Faisal
                                     Sherwani, Mr. Shikher Deep
                                     Aggarwal, Mr. Achal Gupta,Mr.
                                     Shubham Saigal, Mr. Shubham Saigal
                                     & Mr. Karan, Advocates. (M-
                                     9407223688).
                                     Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr.
                                     Dhruv Pande and Mr. Olson Nair,
                                     Advocates     for     L     &     DO.
                                     (M9811191920)
       CORAM:
       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
       Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1.

The present suit has been filed in respect of Unit-C, known as 20-C, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi. On 9th March, 1923, a perpetual lease deed (Ex. P-2) was executed in favour of Shri Tirath Ram Sawhney, for Plot No.10 in Block No.11 (now known as Plot No.20 and 20A). Only Plot No.20, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, which is admeasuring 9407.44 Sq. Yards is the subject matter of the present suit. Thereafter, on 7th August, 1953, Shri Lala Balmukund Shah Sawhney was allotted the said property vide partition deed of the said date (Ex. P-3). Shri Lala Balmukund Shah

Sawhney gifted the said plot to his daughter Mrs. Sita Nanda - Defendant vide gift deed dated 19th August, 1953 (Ex. P-4).

2. A group housing project was approved in the said property on 16th July, 1971, constituting 15 dwelling units per acre in 5 separate units, being 28 dwelling units in all. The Defendant entered into a co-lessee deed with Mr. Piloo Homi Mody and Mrs. Vina Piloo Mody on 23 rd November, 1971 (Ex. P-10). By the said deed, the Defendant transferred and conveyed all her leasehold rights in 865 sq. yards of the property in question marked as Unit-C, which also came to be known as 20-C, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi. The said co-lessee deed was also registered with the Sub-Registrar. Mr. Piloo Homi Mody passed away on 29th January, 1983. He had executed a Will dated 28th November, 1960 by which he bequeathed all his assets to Mrs. Vina Piloo Mody. Mrs. Mody executed an agreement to sell dated 11th December, 1987 for property bearing 20-C, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi- 110011 in favour of the Plaintiff. (Ex. P-15) At the said time, the property was a leasehold property. At the time when the co-lessee deed was executed and consideration contained therein was paid by Mr. and Mrs. Mody to Mrs. Sita Nanda, the Defendant had paid the capital gains tax as per Mr. Matta, Ld. Senior counsel for the Defendant.

3. Subsequently, since the property continued to be leasehold property and an application for conversion had to be made for converting the property into freehold, the Plaintiff paid its share of the conversion charges to Mrs. Sita Nanda, which is duly acknowledged and admitted. For conversion of the property, the application for conversion was made by various co-lessees, which culminated in an order of the Ld. Division Bench dated 17th December, 2012. In the meantime, the L&DO had executed a conveyance

deed dated 17th September, 2012 (Ex. P-33), converting the property into freehold in favour of Mrs. Sita Nanda. However, there is no dispute to the fact that the Plaintiff had contributed its share of the conversion charges, which was paid to the L&DO.

4. After the conveyance deed was executed by the L&DO in favour of the Defendant, various meetings were held between the parties in order for the Plaintiff to discuss the nature of the documents that would be required to be executed between the parties for the purpose of ensuring that the Plaintiff's title is secured. However, no agreement was arrived at between the parties owing to various apprehensions expressed by both the sides. This led to the filing of the present suit. The prayer in the said suit is as under:

"(a) directing the defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff transferring the freehold ownership rights, title and interest in the land admeasuring 865 sq. yards covered by Unit „C‟, known as 20-C, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, forming part of 20, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi as marked in red the site plan along with rights, title and interest upto 15/135 share in the common areas of the entire plot of 20-Prithvi Raj road admeasuring 1190.66 sq. yds. as marked in yellow in the site plan (the relief is valued at Rs. 2,01,00,000/-);

(b) of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, her heirs, legal representatives, agents, employees or any other person claiming through her, from directly or indirectly, transferring, alienating, encumbering, mortgaging, charging or dealing in any other manner with the suit property being land admeasuring 865 sq. yds. covered by Unit „C‟, known as 20-C, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, forming part of 20, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi as marked in red the site plan and Plaintiff‟s share being 15/135 in the common area admeasuring 1190.66 sq. yds. as marked in yellow in

the site plan ( the relief is valued at Rs. 130/-);

(c) award cost of the present suit in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant."

5. The Defendant has also filed her written statement. In the written statement the Defendant admits that she had inducted Mrs. and Mr. Mody as co-lessees in the property and that she had transferred leasehold rights. Broadly, the documents filed by the plaintiff also stand admitted by the Defendant and are duly exhibited as Exhibits P-1 to P-49. The factual narration noted above is not disputed by either of the parties. The documents, including co-lessee deed dated 23rd November, 1971 and the receipt of consideration by the Defendant under the same is also not disputed.

6. Disputes appears to have arisen merely under the apprehension that there may be financial implications, if a conveyance deed is executed in favour of the Plaintiff in the current date. Since the Defendant does not dispute the ownership rights of the Plaintiff in Unit-C known as Plot No.20- C, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi and considering the fact that she no longer enjoys any rights in Unit - C and had divested her rights under the co-lessee deed for payment of consideration in 1971 itself, ld. counsel for the Plaintiff submits that a declaration be granted in favour of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of Plot No.20-C, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi along with all the right, title and interest including the rights in the common areas, as described in the co-lessee deed dated 23rd November, 1971, notwithstanding the subsequent execution of the conveyance deed in favour of the Defendant. The prayers sought in the suit would be satisfied if such a declaration is granted. None of the other reliefs prayed for are pressed by the

Plaintiff.

7. A perusal of the documents and pleadings on record shows that the execution of the co-lessee deed dated 23rd November, 1971 is an admitted document. The payment of consideration at the relevant point in time in 1971 is also admitted. The fact that ownership vested in the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property at the relevant point in time is also not disputed. It is further not disputed that no further consideration has been paid in respect of the suit property to the Defendant apart from what is mentioned in the co-lessee deed dated 23rd November, 1971. In view of this, the sale transaction between the parties had stood concluded in 1971 itself. Thus, there is no impediment for this Court to declare that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property since the time of execution of the co- lessee deed dated 23rd November, 1971.

8. Accordingly, a decree of declaration is granted in favour of the Plaintiff declaring the Plaintiff as the exclusive owner along with all rights, title and interest in the land covered by Unit C, known as 20-C, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi - 110011 (bound by- unit 20-D, Prithviraj Road on the north side, driveway of unit 20 A Prithviraj Road and plot number 22 Prithviraj Road on the west side, unit 20-B Prithviraj Road on the south side and common pathway, unit-E and 20-F Prithviraj Road on the east side) admeasuring 865 square yards along with undivided rights, share and interest upto 15/135 share in common areas of the entire plot of 20- Prithviraj Road, New Delhi - 110011 admeasuring 1190.66 square yards. None of the other reliefs are pressed.

9. The Plaintiff is permitted to approach the authorities for mutation of the suit property in its name, on the strength of this order/decree. The decree

of declaration granted by the Court today shall not fasten any liability on the Defendant. Mr. Shilendera Singh, ld. counsel for the Income Tax Department has entered appearance in place of the earlier counsel and submits that he has no instructions in the matter.

10. Let the decree sheet be drawn in the above terms. The suit and all pending I.As. are disposed of. Parties left to bear their own costs.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE AUGUST 01, 2019 dj