Sandeep Sharma v. Satwant Pritam Singh

$~8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ RFA 232/2018 SANDEEP SHARMA ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Ravi Chawla, Advocate.

versus SATWANT PRITAM SINGH ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

O R D E R

% 07.03.2018 Caveat No.182/2018 1.

Counsel appears for the caveator.

Caveat accordingly stands discharged.

+RFA No.232/2018 and C.M. Nos.8692/2018 (stay), & 8693-94/2018 (exemption) 2.

This appeal is filed by the tenant decreeing the suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord under Order 12 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This appeal is indeed a gross case. Gross case being a gross case of rank dishonesty of the appellant. Appellant in the suit was first proceeded exparte and exparte decree passed. On an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC the exparte decree was set aside. In

the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, no defence of the appellant/defendant being in possession under an oral agreement to sell was taken and is now taken in the written statement. Even in the facts of the present case, payment under the alleged oral agreement to sell, and of which no date was stated, was without filing of any proof of payment of money under the agreement to sell. Appellant had only taken up a convenient stand that his wife with whom the appellant had a divorce is in possession of the receipt of payment of moneys to the son-in-law of the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant claimed that payment were made in Dubai by the appellant to the son-in-law of the respondent.

Appellant has conveniently denied his signatures on the lease agreement.

3.

Respondent is an 85 years old lady. Even assuming there was an oral agreement to sell no rights under this oral agreement to sell would have arisen because the oral agreement to sell is pleaded of the year 2013 i.e after passing of Act 48 of 2001 whereby Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was amended requiring that to claim rights of part performance under an agreement to sell, the agreement to sell must be in writing and must be stamped and registered with stamp duty paid for 90% of

the price/sale value of the suit property.

4.

In my opinion, the present case was a completely fit case where the appellant ought to have prosecuted under Section 209 IPC for taking up a grossly dishonest and false case and which power this Court can exercise under Section 340 Cr.P.C by directing the competent court to proceed against the appellant under Section 209 IPC.

5.

Counsel for the appellant after arguments sought a pass over to take instructions.

After pass over instructions have been taken and instructions are that appellant does not press the appeal. In view of the fact that appeal is not pressed therefore this Court is not proceeding any further against the appellant under Section 209 IPC.

6.

Counsel for the appellant states that appellant will positively within a period of 30 days from today hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff and this statement of the counsel for the appellant is taken as an undertaking on behalf of the appellant. 7.

Appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 07, 2018/Ne