Case Title – Paresh Dandona Vs. Sukruti Dugal & Ors.
Case Number – FAO (OS) 35/2023 & CM APPL. 11617/2023
Dated on – 22nd May, 2024
Quorum – Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of Paresh Dandona Vs. Sukruti Dugal & Ors., involves a dispute over the properties owned by Late Mr. S.N. Dandona and Mrs. Shyam Kumari Dandona, especially the Vasant Vihar Property (Jointly owned by the parents) and the Kailash Hills Property (Exclusively owned by the father). After the demise of the parents, the Appellant (Son) filed a partition suit in 2010. An interim injunction was issued, restraining the respondents from transferring or creating third party rights in the properties. Eventually, a consent decree was passed in the year 2015 stating the share of the Appellant as the basement and ground floor of the Vasant Vihar Property whereas the share of the Respondent No. 2 as the first floor, second floor, and the terrace of the Vasant Vihar Property, and the entire Kailash Hills Property. The Respondent No. 2 agreed to purchase the portion of the Appellant for INR 34.5 Crores within 3.5 years and to pay license fee of INR 4 Lacs per month for interim possession. The Respondent No. 2 failed to make the payment, leading the Appellant to file an execution petition in 2018, resulting in the court issuing the warrants of possession. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 (Daughter of the Respondent No. 2) instituted another suit claiming the properties were part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), seeking a partition and alleging suppression of the consent decree. An ex-parte interim order was issued, maintaining the status quo.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the consent decree of 2015, partitioning the properties, is valid and enforceable?
Whether the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 1 supressed the material facts and made false statements to the court?
Whether the Respondent No. 2 should vacate the portion of the Appellant and pay the agreed license fee?
Whether the suit instituted filed by the Respondent No. 1 is collusive and an abuse of the court process?
Whether the interim order dated 21st December, 2018 should be vacated?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Verification of pleadings
Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Appeal from Orders
Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Form of Appeals
Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted
Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach
Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside
Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 prescribes the Powers of the Judges of the High Court of Delhi
Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes the Definition of Civil Contempt
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prescribes the Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases
Section 19(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prescribes the Actual place of the residence and not a legal or constructing residence
Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Definition for giving false evidence
Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for False evidence
Article 32 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the consent decree was reached after detailed deliberations and should be upheld and that the Respondent No. 2 had agreed to its terms but failed to comply with the same.
The Respondent No. 2 failed to purchase the portion of the Appellant within the agreed period and did not pay the license fee and thus, the Appellant sought execution of the decree.
The Appellants asserted that the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2 suppressed the existence of the consent decree and misled the court to obtain an ex-parte order and that the affidavits of the Respondent No. 2, are contradictory, showing falsehoods and violations of interim orders.
The suit instituted by the Respondent No. 1 is alleged to be collusive, intending to obstruct the execution of the consent decree and deny the Appellant his rightful share.
The Appellant seeks to vacate the interim order that prevents the execution of the warrants of possession.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the status-quo order does not benefit her rather supports the vacation of the interim order and that the Respondent No. 2 estranged from Respondent No. 1 as well as opposes the suit instituted by her, asserting it as frivolous and not maintainable to which the Respondent No. 2 admits the validity of the consent decree and acknowledges her obligation under it but states she is financially unable to pay the license fee or vacate the property.
The Respondent No. 1 agrees to vacate the interim order requests the court to secure the potential 1/6th share in the estate of her grandfather and that the Respondent No. 1 admits to the incorrect statements regarding her possession of the Vasant Vihar Property and acknowledges residing at her matrimonial home. While agreeing to vacate the interim order, the Respondent No. 1 seeks protection for her share of the estate inherited by the Respondent No. 2.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Paresh Dandona Vs. Sukruti Dugal & Ors., noticed that the claim of possession of the Vasant Vihar Property by the Respondent No. 1 were falsified by affidavits from the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3, revealing the property had been sold in the year 2012. The court stated that the inconsistency between the claims of the Respondent No. 1 in the unamended and amended plaint and the affidavits of other Respondents constituted perjury. The judgment dated 9th January,2023 was set aside, and the ad-interim order dated 21st December 2018 was vacated. The Appellant was permitted to proceed with the execution of the proceedings to recover possession of his portion as per the consent decree, with a restriction on creating third-party rights during the pendency of the suit. The court directed the Respondent No. 2 to disclose and deposit 2/3rd of the sale consideration received from the sake of the first and the second floors of the Vasant Vihar property and the Kailash Hills Property, with interest, to secure the interests of the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 3. Given the abuse of the legal process and the collusion between Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 3 to obstruct the execution of the consent decree, the court initiated Suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against them. The court emphasized the importance of truthful affidavits, referencing the stance of the Supreme Court on preserving the integrity of legal affidavits and the responsibility placed on individuals verifying pleadings. The false verifications of pleadings are punishable under Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian penal Code, 1860, and the actions of the Respondent No. 1 met the criteria for contempt due to false assertions in her pleadings and affidavits. The Appeal was allowed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment
