Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Mr. Ajay Bahl, Mr. Vikash Sharma, Ms Deepiksha Bhatt, Advs v. MURARI MIRCHANDANI AND ORS

Judgment

1. Through this appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”], the Appellant [Defendant No.5 in the original Plaint] assails the Judgement dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) No. 1081/2014 captioned Murari Mirchandani vs. Jatinder Sardana & Ors., wherein an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.5 was dismissed holding that no ground was made out for rejection of the plaint, with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 34/2023 Page 1 of 17 Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:09.09.2025 11:42:42 BRIEF FACTS:

2. Admittedly, Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana was the owner of the property bearing No. S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the „suit property‟], who passed away on 05.04.2011. He was a bachelor and died intestate, leaving behind only Class II legal heirs: i. ii. iii. iv. Late Sh. Jatinder Sardana/Respondent No. 2 (Brother)

Ms. Sushma Dewan/Respondent No. 3 (Sister) Late Ms. Sushila Arora/ Respondent No. 4 (Sister) Late Ms. Pushpa Mediratta/ Respondent No. 5 (Sister).

3. It is the case of Sh. Raj Narain Singh/Appellant that Late Sh. Surender Sardana had executed a General Power of Attorney [hereinafter referred to as “GPA”] and Agreement to Sell [hereinafter referred to as “ATS”] dated 24.02.1986, pertaining to the suit property in his favour on receipt of Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) in cash. The suit property was executed vide Conveyance Deed dated 12.08.2013 in favour of the Appellant by the Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as the “DDA”], based on the said GPA/ATS.

4. After the death of Late Sh. Surinder Sardana, his brother, Respondent No.2, for himself and on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 5, executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.01.2012 in favour of Sh. Murari Mirchandani/Respondent No.1 for the purchase of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.19,00,00,000/- Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 34/2023 Page 2 of 17 Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:09.09.2025 11:42:42 (Rupees Nineteen Crores Only). Thereafter, an ATS dated 11.04.2012 was executed by Respondent No.2, for himself and on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 and 4, in favour of Respondent No. 1 for their 3/4th the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 14,75,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Crore and Seventy-Five Lakhs Only). Notably, Respondent No.5 and Appellant did not execute the ATS. However, the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 failed to fulfil their obligation under the MOU and the ATS and therefore, Respondent No.1 was compelled to file a suit for specific performance.

5. Respondent No.1 [Plaintiff in the Original Suit] has prayed for the following reliefs in the underlying suit: “(a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring GPA and Agreement to Sell dated 24.02.1986 in favour of Defendant No.5 as well as the Conveyance Deed dated 12.08.2013 executed by DDA in favour of Defendant No.5 with respect to the property bearing house bearing No.S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi as null, void and not binding on the Plaintiff. the Defendants thereby directing (b) pass a decree of specific performance in favour of the Plaintiff and against specifically perform the MOU dated 18.01.2012 and Agreement to Sell dated 11.04.2012 jointly and hand over the possession of the suit property and execute and get the Sale Deed registered in respect of the suit property being the property bearing house bearing No.S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, built up on a land measuring 499 sq. yds. the Defendants OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE pass a decree of recovery of damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally, for a sum of Rs.19, 00, 00,000/- (Rupees nineteen crores only) alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till realization. (c) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendants from selling, transferring, handing over possession, alienating or creating third party interest in the property bearing house bearing No.S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, built up on a land measuring 499 sq. Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 34/2023 Page 3 of 17 Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:09.09.2025 11:42:42 yds. (d) award costs of the suit to the Plaintiff pass any other or further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.”

6. It is pertinent to note that a perusal of the pleadings shows a chequered history of lis between the original defendants. i. In the year 2012, a suit,being CS(OS) No.350/2012, was filed by one of the LRs of the pre-deceased sister of Late Sh. S. K. Sardana seeking partition of the suit property, which was dismissed vide Order dated 26.03.2014, for having no cause of action. ii. A Writ Petition, being W.P.(C). No.258/2014 was filed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 against DDA and Appellant, assailing the Conveyance Deed dated 12.08.2013 and for cancellation of the title deeds of Appellant regarding the suit property. The Court dismissed the petition vide Order dated

30.01.2014 on the ground of willful suppression of material facts of having executed the ATS, imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on the Petitioners. Subsequently, LPA No. 171/2014, challenging the Judgment in the Writ Petition, was also dismissed vide Judgment dated 14.10.2014. iii. Meanwhile, on 27.01.2014, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a suit bearing Case No. 10/2014 [renumbered as CS No. 5649/2016] against Sh. R. N. Singh and DDA declaration/cancellation of the ATS/GPA dated 24.02.1986 and mandatory injunction before the District Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi against the Appellant. During the pendency of the Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 34/2023 Page 4 of 17 Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:09.09.2025 11:42:42 suit, Respondent No.2 expired on 28.12.2017, and the suit stood abated qua him. Vide Order 01.12.2018, the case was dismissed for non-prosecution.

7. In the suit filed by the Respondent No. 1, the Appellant raised a preliminary objection by filing I.A.15648/2014 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint at the threshold on, interalia, the ground of absence of cause of action, while also claiming that the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have no title and right in the suit property and thereby, the ATS dated 11.04.2012 nor the MOU dated 18.01.2012 have any bearing in law.

8. By the Impugned Judgment dated 18.11.2022, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application stating that no grounds have been made out for rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Only) on the Appellant. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the Appellant/Defendant No.5 has preferred the present Appeal. SUBMISSIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT:

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the suit has no cause of action against the Appellant as the Appellant was neither party to the ATS dated 11.04.2012 nor to the MOU dated 18.01.2012. Hence, the plaint may be rejected against him.

10. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellant had perfected the title qua suit property through the Conveyance Deed dated 12.08.2013 executed by the DDA, on the strength of the ATS and GPA executed Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 34/2023 Page 5 of 17 Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:09.09.2025 11:42:42 on 24.02.1986. He also submitted that the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have no title or right or interest in the suit property, and therefore, the ATS dated 11.04.2012 and the MOU dated 18.01.2012 have no legal bearing.

11. Learned counsel submitted that the Respondent No.1 had no right to challenge the documents or the title of the Appellant with regard to the suit property under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as „SRA‟], being a stranger to the transaction between the original owner and the Appellant. Further, he would contend that Respondent No.1 cannot claim relief under Section 19(1)(b) of the SRA against the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

12. The Appellant argued that the challenge raised by the Class II legal heirs of Shri SK Sardana to the Appellant‟s title qua the suit property and the Conveyance Deed dated 28.06.2013, was dismissed.

13. The Appellant argued that the challenge is time-barred as the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 had knowledge regarding the title of the Appellant vide Order dated 26.03.2014 passed in suit CS(OS) No.350/2012 captioned Sangeeta Bhambani Vs. Jatinder Sardana & Ors.

14. Reliance has been placed on the following Judgements: Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational i. Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust1, 1(2012) 8 SCC 706. Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 34/2023 Page 6 of 17 Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:09.09.2025 11:42:42 ii. iii. iv. v. vi. T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal2 M/s Sakthi Sugars Limited v. Union of India & Anr. 3 Sivananda Roy v. Janaki Ballav Pattnaik4 Aruna Gupta v. Ranbir Singh Dhanjal5 Samarjit Chakravarty v. Tej Properties Pvt. Ltd.,6 V.K. Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan7 vii. viii. Gomti Devi v. Ram Prasad8 ix. Sewa Ram v. Union of India9 Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of x. Haryana &Anr.10 SUBMISSIONS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1:

15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has argued that the title documents of the Appellant, being ATS/GPA dated 24.02.1986, claiming suit ownership of the suit property, are forged and fabricated, as Late Sh. S. K. Sardana was dealing with the suit property till the time of his death, which is evident from the documents on record. The Conveyance Deed, post the execution of the ATS and MOU has no legal force.

16. The Respondent No.1 has pleaded that the Suit is maintainable under Section 19 of the SRA as the Appellant acquired the title through the Conveyance Deed, which was after the ATS and MOU. 2(1977) 4 SCC 2421. 3AIR 1981 Delhi 212 4AIR 1985 Orissa 197 5Aruna Gupta v. Ranbir Singh Dhanjal, 2001 SCC OnLine P&H 590