Partly allowed

Anoop Singh v. Haryana Financial Corporation

Delhi HC7 Dec 2011RFA/271/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two cross appeals regarding the validity of a mortgage over shop Nos. 3 and 4 and the disposition of basement rights. The court held the trial court correctly found mortgage only covered the specified shops, not the basement. On cross appeal, it directed that future partition of the larger joint property must account for the value of the mortgaged shops already allocated to the predecessor.

What did the court decide?

Appeal RFA No. 271/2003 allowed to the extent future partition accounts for value of shops; RFA No. 344/2003 dismissed as mortgage does not extend to basement. Trial court record sent back.

Anoop Singh Vs Haryana Financial Corporation — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶2

% 7^th December, 2011

¶3

RFA 271/2003

¶4

ANOOP SINGH ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Shailender Dahiya, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through : Mr. G.S. Raikhy, Advocate.

¶7

And

¶8

- RFA 344/2003

¶9

HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through : Mr. G.S. Raikhy, Advocate.

¶10

versus

¶11

ANOOP SINGH ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Shailender Dahiya, Advocate.

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

¶13

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶14

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

¶15

These are two appeals, filed by the plaintiff and the defendant

¶16

respectively, against the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated

¶17

2.12.2002. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court held that the

¶18

RFA No. 271, 344 of 2003

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

mortgaged shops have been validly mortgaged to the financial institution, namely, Haryana Financial Corporation / defendant for recovery of dues.

¶21

The impugned judgment has also by reference to the mortgage documents held that mortgage was only of the shop Nos. 3 and 4, and there was no mortgage of the basement mentioned in the mortgage documents. It was therefore consequently held that the defendant/Haryana Financial Corporation has no rights to the basement.

¶22

The facts of the case are that the appellant in RFA No.271/2003 and the plaintiff in the suit, prayed for a declaration to the effect that the mortgage of shop Nos. 3 and 4 and basement situated in khasra No.66/1, village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi executed by Ms. Sunita, the sole partner of M/s Bhawna Home Furnishing was null and void because the subject shops formed part of a larger joint family property which was never partitioned, and therefore, the specific shops could not have been mortgaged to the defendant in the suit. Ms. Sunita is the daughter of Sh. Labh Singh Chaudhary; brother of the plaintiff.

¶23

The Trial Court has held that there was a valid mortgage with respect to shop Nos. 3 and 4, and to which finding I also agree inasmuch as it is not disputed that the suit property as a whole belonged to two brothers, namely,

¶24

Sh. Anoop Singh (plaintiff) and the father of Ms. Sunita, Sh. Labh Singh RFA No. 271, 344 of 2003 Page

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

Chaudhary. Sh. Labh Singh Chaudhary had transferred rights in the shop Nos. 3 and 4 by means of certain documentations, and pursuant to which the defendant / Haryana Financial Corporation accepted the mortgage created with respect to shop Nos. 3 and 4. During the course of hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant stressed only one aspect that without actual partition, since the subject shops have been mortgaged in favour of the defendant / Haryana Financial Corporation, it should be observed by this Court that when there is an actual partition between the plaintiff / Sh. Anoop Singh and brother-Sh. Labh Singh Chaudhary, then Sh. Labh Singh Chaudhary will get a lesser value on such partition and it will be presumed that for the value of the share to be allocated to Sh. Labh Singh Chaudhary, he already has received towards that share the value of the shop Nos.3 and 4.

¶27

Accordingly, so far as RFA No.271/2003 is concerned, it is disposed

¶28

of with the observation that whenever there is a partition of the property, which is said to be of about 2,000 sq. yds, of Sh. Anoop Singh and Sh. Labh Singh Chaudhary, situated in khasra No.66/1, village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi, then, the appellant / plaintiff, on establishing that he has otherwise received no earlier share, will have a larger share from the balance portion of the property excluding the shop Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the share which will

¶29

already be deemed to be allocated to Sh. Labh Singh Chaudhary and who RFA No. 271, 344 of 2003 Page

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

will thus be entitled to a lesser share considering that with respect to his share, Sh. Labh Singh Chaudhary already has taken ownership rights of the subject shop Nos. 3 and 4.

¶32

So far as RFA No.344/2003 is concerned, counsel for the appellant / Haryana Financial Corporation, could not seriously dispute that in the mortgage documents, what is mortgaged are only the shop Nos. 3 and 4, and there is no mention of the mortgage of the basement. If that be so, mortgage would only be valid with respect to the shop Nos. 3 and 4 and not with respect to the basement under the shops. Merely because a valuation report was given which included the shops and the basement, would not mean that basement would also be mortgaged inasmuch as it is very much possible that

¶33

the basement may have been originally intended to be mortgaged, however, the same would not have been mortgaged, inasmuch as, the mortgage documents reflect mortgage of only of shop Nos. 3 and 4.

¶34

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.

¶35

Parties are left to bear their own costs. Trial Court record be sent back.

¶36

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

¶37

DECEMBER 7, 2011 dk

¶38

RFA No. 271, 344 of 2003

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Anoop Singh v. Haryana Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Singh v. Haryana Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Kumar & Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar

Savitri Devi Vs Ashok Kumar Sehgal & Ors.

M/S Mso Build.Emp.Coop.St.Ltd. Vs the Chief Election Comm & Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Urmila

Jaspreet Singh Baluja Vs Ramandeep Kaur

Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. Vs Gold Star Hotel Pvt. Ltd.