Third party can pay disputed amount: HC

A court in Delhi,where Singh had sought recovery of Rs 10,000 from Sawhney in 1975,had ordered the attachment of the flat in Ravidarshan Co-operative Housing Society in Bandra (West) as Sawhney claimed he did not own any property in Delhi. However,the petitioners’ mother Rajinder Malick had challenged the attachment of the flat stating that she was the owner of the flat since its purchase in 1971 and it cannot be auctioned – as ordered by a court on February 1991 – to recover Singh’s dues from Sawhney.

According to the petitioners,the original purchase agreement of March 4,1971 between their father KM Malick and the erstwhile owner of the flat Abdul Gaffoor Khan was witnessed by Sawhney. However,the society inadvertently issued the share certificate in the name of Sawhney which by a subsequent agreement was transferred in the name of Rajinder. After their mother’s death,the petitioners had moved court stating that they were willing to deposit the disputed amount between Singh and Sawhney – escalated to Rs 36,474 over the years – to protect their flat from being auctioned. A single judge of the HC had earlier allowed them to deposit the amount with the Sheriff of Mumbai and said Sawhaney could withdraw it if he so wished. However,Sawhney had contended that they had no locus standi to deposit the amount disputed in another suit. After a round of litigation in the Supreme Court,the case was referred back to the HC.

Maintaining the earlier order of the HC,Justice BR Gavai observed that in a hypothetical situation where a person who has sold the flat is not willing to honour the sale agreement can instigate someone to file a suit against him for a paltry amount and get the sold property attached for recovery of dues.

The court said that if in such a situation,the third party who has paid the due consideration of the flat and is in possession of it is not allowed to pay the disputed amount to put the suit to rest,“ it would result in giving a tool in hands of unscrupulous cantankerous litigants to circumvent the rights they have transferred in favour of third parties after receiving a consideration,to realise huge amount by auction of said property.”

“It is difficult to understand as to why the respondent number two (Sawhney),who claims to be the owner of the property,does not want to pay the paltry sum of Rs 36,474 and save his valuable property from being auctioned. Certainly,there appears to be much more in the present matter than what meets the eye,” the court observed.