In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff filed a case for possession, declaration and permanent injunction which was earlier dismissed by the lower court and the first appellate court on 26. 7.2014 and 1.12. 2016 respectively.
The plaintiff has executed a registered general power of attorney and sale document dated 25.9.2006 in favor of the defendant and which were also notarised.
The contention of the petitioner was that he has only transferred the property because he has taken a loan for INR 1,00,000 from the defendant. The appellant termed it is a loan transaction and claimed that there was no sale in the instant matter. However, these contentions were not accepted by the trial court or the first appellate court as there was a proper General Power of Attorney and Sale documents in place.
The appellant further contended that since the rate at that time was around 5 lacs and the property was transferred only 1 lac that implies that the GPA was illegal. In an effort to show that the sale deed presented by the defendant is illegal, Nath argued that Khem Chand himself has admitted that the suit property was transferred to Kamla Devi for Rs.3. 25 lakh and the circle rates at the time of filing of the written statement for Rs. 5 lakh.
Considering the above facts the Delhi High Court has held that the property could have been undervalued to pay less stamp duty or conceal income. As per Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which categorically specifies that inadequacy of consideration is not a valid ground for canceling of a contract. In various cases, it has been observed that the declared consideration does not represent the actual consideration.
The high court held that the third party rights originating from registered sale deed were protected by the Transfer of Property Act making the present owner the rightful owner of the property and Nath, in any case, had failed to prove repayment of alleged loan amount.
677+ Lawyers are online 
.jpg)
.jpg)
