Sarvinder Singh & Anr. vs Vipul Tandon
Date of Order:
14 July, 2022
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Plaintiff: Sarvinder Singh & Anr.
Defendant: Vipul Tandon
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XII Rule 6 - The power to pass judgment on admissions is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right - The said power should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke it
- Dr. Satyender Singh who is the father of the decree holder, Sarvinder Singh, sold the suit’s property’s ground and the first floor to via a Sale deed dated September 6, 1988, to the father of the objector.
- The father of the objector further entered into an agreement to sale on 29th August, 1993, , Smt. Nirmal Satyendra Singh ( mother of the Decree Holder), for the purchase of the terrace of the suit property. The amount for the sale was 4,41,00rs. Smt. Nirmal Satyendra Singh took Rs. 2,00000 as a down payment for the purchase of the terrace at the subject property of the lawsuit, and she signed a receipt in the name of the objector's father. The father of the Objector was then given possession of one room.
- Further a Sale deed was executed on the favour of the Objector with regard to the terrace of the suit property. upon he payment of the necessary stamp duty and further the remaining amount of 2,41,000rs was paid.
- After the sale deed the objector started carrying out construction on the terrace of the second floor and further shifted to the suit property in 2002. The Decree Holders filed a lawsuit in January 2002 seeking a permanent injunction against the Judgment Debtor in regard to the entire suit property, which included three floors, a terrace with a lawn, and four servant quarters. The said lawsuit was dismissed by the Court.
- The decree holder filed a case while referencing to Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. In that affidavit, it was claimed that the judgement debtor had misused the property in question for roughly 20 years following the death of the Decree Holders' mother and had deceitfully sold some of the property that belonged to both the mother and the Decree Holders at the time.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE
- The Objector is the rightful purchaser of the suit property, according to the Agreement to Sale executed by the mother of the Decree Holder. The Sale Deed was executed in favour of the Objector after the mother of the Decree Holder passed away.
- The Objector has owned the suit property and, to the knowledge of the Decree Holders, has added on the second and third levels. At the time the property was purchased, the judgement debtor had legal letters of administration dated August 13, 1997. Due to this, the Objector exercised due care to make sure the Judgement Debtor was authorised to make the transfer.
- Throughout, the objector has maintained ownership of the suit property. As far as the Decree Holders are aware, he also made a request for a mutation, and he has been paying his property taxes on time.
- Despite being aware of the Objector's possession, the Decree Holders did not name the Objector or specify the third level of the suit property in their lawsuits for a permanent restraining order and for possession. Despite knowing that a portion of the suit property had been sold to Dr. Chandra Prakash Khatri, a servant room had been sold to a Yogender Paul, and Renu Aggarwal had been sold in the same circumstances as the Objector, the Decree Holders and the Judgment Debtor have taken no action against any of the aforementioned purchasers.
- From 1994 to 2005, and up until the present, the Decree Holders did not take any action against the Judgment Debtor or the Objector. The Sale Deed executed in the Objector's favour is still in effect and hasn't been contested in court. The Decree Holders have implicitly approved the Objector's ownership of the suit property. The argument that a transfer by an ostensible owner is not voidable on the grounds that the transferor was not authorised to make it is based in part on Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), which states that where there is an implied consent of the parties interested in the subject property.
- The Objectors have completed their respective independent legal titles as the independent owners of two servant quarters via uninterrupted and peaceful occupancy for the past 19 years. The Decree Holders are no longer able to assert any claims about the ownership of the suit property because the twelve-year statute of limitations has passed.
- The Decree Holders have never contested the Sale Deed that the Judgment Debtor executed in favour of the Objector, nor have they ever been the subject of an injunction order. If the Decree Holders want to keep or regain possession while maintaining their ownership claim, they must first demonstrate better title than the Objectors.
- The Objectors have been evicted from the portion of the suit property that they were occupying, without making them a party to the squabble.
- Even if the legal title obtained from the Judgment Debtor is held to be defective due to the reason that the will was set aside, the Objectors have also perfected their legal title by hostile, peaceful, and continuous possession of the suit property.
- The Court noted that it appeared to be illegal for the Decree Holders to have taken possession of the properties from the Objectors. The transaction in the Objectors' favour and their possession of the aforementioned sections of the suit property were both known to the Decree Holders. Despite being aware of this, the Decree Holders did not name the Objectors as defendants in their own lawsuit. Even after the decree was issued, the objectors were immediately ejected from the areas of the suit property they had long-term occupied without giving them any formal notice to leave the premises or making them party to the execution proceedings.
- The Court has also taken notice of the fact that the Objectors have had established possession of the aforementioned properties from at least 1999 and 2002, as evidenced by registered Sale Deeds. In a lawsuit where the Objectors were purposefully not made parties despite the Decree Holders/plaintiffs being aware of their possession of the above portions of the suit property, the Decree Holders/plaintiffs could not have unilaterally dispossessed the aforesaid Objectors. Even after the decree was issued, the objectors were immediately ejected from the sections of the suit property they had long-term occupied without giving them any formal notice to leave the premises or making them party to the execution proceedings
The court ultimately decided that, unless evidence of fraud or collusion was presented, intermediate acts carried out by the administrator while the letters of administration granted in his favour were validly in existence would not be undone or invalidated simply because the letters of administration granted in his favour were later set aside.