Ms. Manjeet Kaur & Anr v. Mr. Devender Dagar & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. NOVEMBER 28, 2019 "gsr".. (corrected & released on 18th December, 2019)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 28th November, 2019. + MANJEET KAUR & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Prateek Chaudhary, Adv. Versus DEVENDER DAGAR & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.16686/2019 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. CS(OS) 619/2019 & IA No.16685/2019 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) 3. The two plaintiffs have instituted this suit for the reliefs of, (i) declaration as null and void and cancelation of the registered Gift Deed, dated 6th February, 2014 executed by plaintiff no.1 Manjeet Kaur in favour of defendant no.2 Rashmi Dagar, of freehold built up property bearing no.48, ad-measuring 209 sq. mtrs. in Block-B, Pocket 10 of Sector 13 Dwarka Residential Scheme; (ii) recovery of possession of the property subject matter of the Gift Deed; and, (iii) permanent injunction restraining the two defendants from dealing with the property subject matter of the Gift Deed and / or from making any additions, alterations or changes therein. 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint, that (i) the plaintiff no.2 Narender Dagar and defendant no.1 Devender Dagar are brothers; (ii) the plaintiff no.1 and wife of defendant no.1 are sisters; (iii) the defendant no.2 is the daughter of defendant no.1; (iv) the plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.1 worked together as partners from 1991 till 2010, though essentially the business was conducted by them in their own names and not in the name of the firm; (v) there was a high degree of trust between the plaintiff no.2 and the defendant no.1; (vi) in January, 2014, the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff no.2, stating that the defendant no.1 desired that the property subject matter of the Gift Deed be gifted to the defendant no.2 on the occasion of marriage of defendant No.2 and asked the plaintiffs for the said gift to be made and in return offered a property of equivalent value of the choosing of the plaintiffs, at a later date, in lieu of the property gifted; (vii) in view of the high degree of trust, the plaintiff no.2 did not check the contents of the Gift Deed and asked the plaintiff no.1 to execute the Gift Deed and the plaintiff no.1 also mechanically executed the Gift Deed; (viii) it was because of the said trust that the defendant no.1 was able to defraud the plaintiffs by failing to include in the recitals to the Gift Deed about the exchange of property; (ix) it has now become clear that the defendants deliberately enacted a charade, solely for defrauding the plaintiffs by having the Gift Deed executed; (x) the defendant no.1 never intended to fulfil the agreement of giving a property to the plaintiffs in lieu of the gifted property; (xi) that owing to the said trust, the plaintiffs, on 19th June, 2013 and 8th January, 2014 loaned monies to the defendant no.1 and his wife and which have also not been repaid and a suit for recovery of Rs.1,90,83,000/- along with interest is being filed against the defendant no.1 and his wife, contemporaneously with the present suit; (xii) on 13th June, 2018, a final show down took place between defendant no.1 and the plaintiff no.2, about the inordinate delay on the part of the defendant no.1 to pay back the borrowed amount and to transfer in favour of plaintiffs, property of equivalent value of the property gifted; (xiii) it was then that the defendant no.1 displayed his true colours by refusing to honour his agreement; (xiv) paragraph 12 of the plaint is as under: "12. The impugned Gift Deed was gotten executed by the Defendant No.1 by making an Oral Agreement of exchanging equal value property against the Suit Property with Plaintiff No.2. However, it is now self-evident that the Defendant no.1 right from the inception had no intention to keep the said promise and for this reason he deliberately did not include any recital to this effect in the body of the impugned Gift Deed. The Plaintiff never checked th