In context to a registered Deed of Lease for 40 years to a building executed by the defendant in favour of the plainitff, the defendant after receiving consideration and performing part of contract held the plaintiff hostage to his investments to coerce for money outside the contract and upon his demand not being fulfilled refused possession and thereafter, executed a self made Deed of Revocation which unilateral revocation was disallowed by the sub-registrar, however, at the expense of perjury in the name of Sub-Registrar issued notice to the plaintiff claiming the Deed of Lease was revoked by the sub-registrar who asked him to issue notice in respect. Then after a month, he further wrote a letter to the sub-registrar requesting to no allow mutation in favour of the plaintiff as the Lease of Deed was executed by him in mistake.
When the plaintiff sued for injunction, possession, specific performance, compensation and damages the defendant in his written statement alleged vague charges of undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation bereft of any particulars. The allegations does not disclose the precise nature of influence exercised, the manner of use of influence and or the unfair advantage obtained by the plaintiff but only a vague and general allegation that the defendant reposed great confidence on the plaintiff while also admitting that he became familiar with the plaintiff only a few weeks prior to the execution of the Deed.
Interestingly, the defendant has submitted the self made deed of revocation, legal notice, letter to Sub-registrar and a letter from the Sub-registrar that the deed cannot be revoked by their office in support of the written statement. In the self made deed of revocation the defendant has admitted to executing the lease deed and his reason assigned for revoking the same are to look after his property in his own reason. In the legal notice to revocation the defendant has yet again admitted to his executing the deed of lease and further admitted the terms of it and his obligations under contract. Both documents have no mention of foul play and later in his letter to the Sub-Registrar he has also admitted executing the deed of lease but supposedly in mistake. And it is only now that upon being sued in court that he realized that the Deed of Lease was unfairly grasped from him.
As per the stage of the case, pleadings are complete and issues are yet to be framed.
It has been decided that an application under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 6 Rule 2 & 4, be filed next week to strike of vexatious pleadings of undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation and after its decision put in an application under Order 12 Rule 6 for Judgment on admission.
The questions I have in mind are as follows:-
- Instead of two applications which will take more time, can I not put in an application for judgement on admission right away in which a case can be made as to why allegations of foul play is liable to be ignored and dismissed.
- What are my chances of getting a judgment on admission and the court to ignore the vexatious allegations of foul play?
- The defendant upon realization that the allegations of foul play in written statement is general, vague and bereft of particulars may put in an application to amend it. Will the court allow it?
All your help, opinion and thoughts in the matter will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
