Final Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: MISC DJ 54/2024
Mahinder Kumar Gupta
Vs.
Nasiruddin and Faizan
22.01.2025
ORDER
1. By way of present order, I shall decide the
objections filed by objector Faizan S/o Shahabuddin under
Rules 58 (1), (2), (3) (a), (3) (d), (4) etc. r/w Rule 59 (a),
(b) of Order XXI and Section 151 CPC for ex-parte ad-
interim stay in execution proceedings i.e. Execution
Application no.124/2023 arising out of Civil Suit
no.534/2021 and ex-parte order dated 23.12.2023 without
service of the notice upon the objector.
2. Arguments have been advanced by Sh. Sanjay
Gupta, Ld. Counsel for applicant/objector Faizan and by
Sh. Satish Sharma, Ld. Counsel for non-applicant/decree
holder. I have also perused the record.
3. Ld. Counsel for applicant/objector argued that
objector Faizan is the absolute owner of H. No. 522, Gali
no.7, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Mustafabad, Shahdara and he is
enjoying the peaceful possession of the property. It is
submitted that there is no registry of the aforesaid property
as same is situated in kachchi colony. Ld. Counsel for
applicant/objector further argued that objector is also
making payment of bills of electricity and water of the said
property.
4. Ld. Counsel for applicant/objector vehemently
contended that as per law, the objections are to be decided
MISC DJ 54/2024 Mahinder Kumar Gupta vs. Nasiruddin and Faizan Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
on merits after taking evidence of the parties on record. It
is thus submitted that objections/application may be
allowed and no coercive action may be taken against the
applicant/objector Faizan.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for non-applicant/decree
holder argued that in order to evade the execution of
decreetal amount, the judgment debtor in collusion of his
wife and objector Faizan had created fabricated set of
documents purported to the sale of property bearing H.
No.522, Gali no.7, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Mustafabad,
Shahdara. Ld. Counsel for non-applicant/decree holder
further argued that the copies of documents as filed on
record are of unregistered documents and entire
consideration amount is surprisingly shown as paid in cash
without showing any document regarding source of the
said consideration. It is thus submitted that photocopies of
the documents as relied upon by the objector are sham
documents and filed in order to avoid execution of the
money decree.
6. In brief, facts are that decree holder has filed a
execution petition no.124/23 for execution of judgment
and decree dated 10.04.2023 passed by Sh. Surinder S.
Rathi, Ld. District Judge (Commercial Court-03)
Shahdara, Delhi, whereby the suit of plaintiff was decreed
with costs for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- alongwith interest
@ 18 % per annum pendente lite and till realization.
7. The objector Faizan has claimed that he is the
absolute owner of the H. no.522, Gali no.7, Rajiv Gandhi
MISC DJ 54/2024 Mahinder Kumar Gupta vs. Nasiruddin and Faizan Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
Nagar, Mustafabad, Shahdara, Delhi-94 by virtue of GPA,
Agreement to Sell, Possession letter executed in his favour
and that he is paying electricity and water bills.
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as Suraj
Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and Anr.,
AIR 2012 Supreme Court 206, held as under:-
“16. We therefore reiterate that immovable property
can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed
only by a registered deed of conveyance.
Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or
‘SA/GPA/WILL transfers’ do not convey title and
do not amount to transfer, nor can they be
recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable
property. The courts will not treat such transactions
as completed or concluded transfers or as
conveyances as they neither convey title nor create
any interest in an immovable property. They cannot
be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited
extent of section 53A of the TP Act.”
9. In order to claim his right in the property i.e. H.
No.522, Gali no.7, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Mustafabad,
Shahdara, Delhi-94, the applicant/objector Faizan is
relying upon unregistered Agreement to Sell dated
19.08.2021 and receipt regarding payment of consideration
amount of Rs.35,00,000/- paid in cash to the wife of
judgment debtor. It is a settled law that unregistered
Agreement to Sell does not confer any title or right,
therefore, objector Faizan cannot claim that he is the
owner of aforesaid property. No purpose would be served
to allow the applicant/objector to lead his evidence when
the documents, as relied upon by the applicant/objector are
inadmissible in evidence.
MISC DJ 54/2024 Mahinder Kumar Gupta vs. Nasiruddin and Faizan Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
10. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for objector that the
objector is paying all kinds of bill i.e. electricity, water
etc., and the photocopy of the electricity bill was filed on
record. Perusal of photocopy of electricity bill of CA
No.154364916 installed at H. No.522, Ground floor, Old
379, Khasra no. 383/1, New Mustafabad, Near Sana Public
School, Delhi-94 in the name of objector shows the
Energisation date as of 30.01.2024. Perusal of record
shows that notice of execution petition was issued to
judgment debtor on 11.12.2023 and it was served upon
wife of the judgment debtor on 18.12.2023 and thereafter,
either the name of consumer of the electricity connection
got changed or a new connection is installed in the
aforesaid property in the name of objector, that is why the
Energisation date is appearing as 30.01.2024 in the
photocopy of electricity bill. The photocopies of the
unregistered documents i.e. Agreement to Sell, receipt of
cash payment and the photocopy of electricity bill having
Energisation date as 30.01.2024 do not confer any title or
right in the aforesaid property in favour of objector and it
appears that same have been filed to avoid the execution of
the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023. The objections,
as filed on behalf of objector Faizan are devoid of any
merits and same stands dismissed being so.
(Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra)
District Judge (Commercial Court)
North-East, KKD Courts, Delhi
22.01.2025
MISC DJ 54/2024 Mahinder Kumar Gupta vs. Nasiruddin and Faizan Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --