Rushali Khera Vs.State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (03 Mar 2023)

Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot annul the registered document on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation

MANU/DE/1351/2023

Civil

The present writ petition has been filed for issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 4 to immediately cancel the impugned conveyance deed dated 16th September, 2014 and declare it to be null and void and to direct the Respondent No. 4 to conduct an enquiry as to the involvement of the officials of DDA in connivance with Respondent no. 5 and 6 to execute impugned conveyance deed.

The Petitioner has already filed a civil suit in relation to the possession of the disputed property and the same is pending consideration before the concerned Civil Court. It is an admitted fact that Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are contesting the said suit and have relied upon the alleged forged and fabricated documents in support of their case.

The Courts have time and again held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be invoked for the purpose of adjudication of disputed questions of facts of such nature which would require elaborate evidence to be adduced and may involve the cross-examination of witnesses. Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot annul the registered document on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The same are mixed questions of fact and law. The party always have a remedy to approach the competent Civil Court and file an appropriate suit for such relief.

The Petitioner, in the present case, has already filed a civil suit, raising the issue of possession being taken from him on the basis of alleged forged and fabricated documents. The issue, by its very nature, involves disputed questions of fact which would require leading of evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses.

The Petitioner having already availed the remedy of filing a civil suit, cannot be allowed to maintain a writ petition involving the same issues which are pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court. Thus, a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 4/DDA to cancel the impugned Conveyance Deed dated 16.09.2014, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be issued.

It is noticed that the Conveyance Deed contains a clause which states that, if it is discovered at any stage that this deed has been obtained by suppression of any fact or by any mis-statement, mis-representation or fraud, then this deed shall become void at the option of vendor, who shall have the right to cancel this deed and forfeit the consideration paid by the purchaser. The decision of the vendor in this regard shall be final and binding upon the purchaser and shall not be called in question in any proceedings. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has already given a representation to the DDA, pointing out the alleged illegalities. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent No. 4/DDA to decide the representation by passing a speaking order.

Tags : CONVEYANCE DEED EXECUTION LEGALITY