Sanjay Muniyal & Anr v. Shyam Lata

Order VII Rule 11 (a). XXX

15.8 The delay of over 5 and ½ years after the alleged cause of action arose in 2009, shows that the suit was clearly barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was instituted on 15.12.2014, even though the alleged cause of action arose in 2009, when the last cheque was delivered to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have failed to discharge the onus of proof that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The plaint is therefore, liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC."

¶22In view of the well-settled position of law elaborated above, the

registered sale deeds have recognition and cannot be set aside in the manner as has been sought by the Plaintiff. The sale deeds are binding between the parties and cancellation of the sale deeds would not be liable to be granted even on the grounds stated in the plaint, i.e., non receipt of the consideration. In any event, the incident on 3rd October, 2015 did not constitute any fresh cause of action, as the same has been completely misrepresented in the plaint. Clearly, the Plaintiff was aware that the sale deeds were executed on 29th August, 2013. The suits were filed only on 13th September 2018. Therefore, the suits would anyway clearly not be maintainable in law, having been filed beyond the period of limitation.

¶23The Plaintiff having not entered appearance in these matters, to counter the submissions made on behalf of the Defendants, as also the delay in filing the suits and the settled legal position that the registered sale deeds cannot be cancelled in the manner as is being sought by the Plaintiff, the suits would not be maintainable under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶24For these reasons, the suits are liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶25The petitions are allowed in above terms and are disposed of, along with all pending applications.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE FEBRUARY 18, 2022/Aman/ms (corrected & printed on 21st February, 2022)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18th February, 2022 + C.R.P. 7/2020 & CM APPL. 1959/2020 MANOHAR LAL MUNIYAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kailash Pandey & Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocates. (M:9811107711) versus SHYAM LATA ..... Respondent Through: None. AND + C.R.P. 8/2020 SANJAY MUNIYAL & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Kailash Pandey & Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Advocates. versus SHYAM LATA ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing. 2. These two revision petitions arise out of the impugned order dated 18th October, 2019 in CS No.889/18 & 890/18 titled Shyam Lata v. Sanjay Muniyal & Anr., by which the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the Petitioners/Defendants (hereinafter "Defendants") were rejected by the Trial Court. 3. Notably, in these petitions, notice was issued on 20th January, 2020 when the proceedings before the Trial Court were stayed. Thereafter, the Respondent-Plaintiff, Ms. Shyam Lata (hereinafter "Plaintiff") has been served and on the said date the Plaintiff was duly represented before this Court, however, thereafter she stopped appearing. On the previous date, i.e., 3rd December, 2021, this Court had directed the Trial Court to serve the Plaintiff in the suits through the Trial Court. However, it is informed by the ld. counsel for the Defendants, that on 8th January, 2022, before the Trial Court also, the Plaintiff did not appear. Therefore, the Plaintiff has not appeared in these petitions despite repeated opportunities. This Court has proceeded to hear the matter today and the Defendants have made their submissions. 4. These suits were filed by the Plaintiff, Ms. Shyam Lata, seeking declaration of the sale deeds dated 29th August, 2013 as null and void and cancellation of the said sale deeds as also injunction in respect of the flats situated on the Upper Ground Floor rear side (in C.R.P. 7/2020) and First Floor rear side (in C.R.P. 8/2020), both in the property No. RZ - E - 53, out of Khasra No. 34/9, situated in the area of Village Dabri, Delhi state, colony known as West Sagar Pur, New Delhi - 110046, measuring 100 Sq. Yards (hereinafter "suit properties"). 5. The case of the Plaintiff in the suits is that the Plaintiff went to the Registrar's Office with the Defendants, for execution of an agreement to sell in respect of the suit properties. The Plaintiff claimed that she was an illiterate woman and the Defendants misused the personal relationship they had with the Plaintiff. The Defendant without paying the due consideration, got sale deeds executed between the Plaintiff and Defendants, as opposed to an agreement to sell which was the document that ought to have been executed. 6. Hence, the prayer which was sought in the suits was as under: "a) Pass a Decree thereby declaring the sale deed dated 29.08.2013 as null and void and cancel the sale deed as void ab initio. b) Restrain the defendant from sale, alienating, letting or creating third party interest in the suit property. c) Any other further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 7. In the written statement filed before the Trial Court, the Defendants took two pleas. Firstly, that the sale deeds are registered sale deeds and no cancellation can be sought in this manner and secondly, the suits are barred by limitation. The Defendants further pleaded that the suits are false suits and the Plaintiff has followed a similar modus operandi in respect of four other flats which she has sold and she is in the habit of instituting such suits in respect of various other properties as well. 8. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of plaint, taking the said pleas was also filed by the Defendants. 9. Vide the impugned order dated 18th October, 2019, the Trial Court has held that the suits would not be liable to be dismissed in view of th