2017 (11) TMI 1869 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Dismisses Suit for Partition and Fraud, Applying In Pari Delicto Principle

The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking partition, possession, cancellation of a Relinquishment Deed, and permanent injunction. The court applied ... Principle of pari delicto - Partition, possession, cancellation of Relinquishment Deed - permanent injunction - alleged fraud - HELD THAT:- Upon a reading of the plaint and the documents filed, this Court finds that every time the plaintiff points one finger at the defendants, three fingers point back to the plaintiff. From the pleadings on record and arguments advanced, it is apparent that the plaintiff is equally at fault and was a part of the alleged fraud - this Court is of the view that the plaintiff on her own averments is a party to a fraud and had not disclosed true, correct and complete facts to the Registrar while getting the Relinquishment Deed registered. This Court is of the opinion that the principle of pari delicto is clearly applicable to the present case. In VINOD POPLI VERSUS RAGINI POPLI & ORS [2015 (4) TMI 1286 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this Court had culled out the principle of pari delicto holding that the phrase means 'the principle that a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing may not recover damages resulting from the wrongdoing' and when parties to a legal controversy are in pari delicto neither can obtain any relief from the Court, since both are at equal fault or of equal guilt. This Court is of the view that the present plaint is barred by the principle of in pari delicto. Accordingly, present plaint and applications are rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - present suit and pending applications are dismissed. Issues:Partition, Possession, Cancellation of Relinquishment Deed, Permanent InjunctionPartition Issue Analysis:The plaintiff filed a suit seeking partition, possession, cancellation of a Relinquishment Deed, and permanent injunction. The plaintiff alleged that the Relinquishment Deed executed in favor of her brothers was obtained fraudulently, promising a certain amount which was not fully paid. The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership in the property and to restrain the defendants from dealing with it.Cancellation of Relinquishment Deed Issue Analysis:The plaintiff requested the court to declare the Relinquishment Deed null and void due to alleged fraud. Despite the court's observation that the plaintiff might only be entitled to recover the balance amount, the plaintiff insisted on canceling the deed entirely, not limiting the relief to damages. The plaintiff argued that both the Relinquishment Deed and the Settlement Receipt should be canceled if found vitiated by fraud.Principle of Pari Delicto Issue Analysis:The court highlighted the doctrine of pari delicto, emphasizing that both parties were potentially at fault in the alleged fraudulent transaction. The court noted that the plaintiff had not disclosed the true nature of the transaction to the Registrar, implicating her in the fraud. Citing legal precedents, the court explained that parties in pari delicto, equally at fault, cannot seek relief from the court. The court concluded that the plaintiff's suit was barred by the principle of in pari delicto, leading to the dismissal of the suit and pending applications.Conclusion:The judgment delves into the complexities of the case involving partition, cancellation of the Relinquishment Deed, and the application of the principle of pari delicto. Despite the plaintiff's claims of fraud, the court found her equally complicit and dismissed the suit based on the doctrine of in pari delicto. The detailed legal analysis and reference to relevant case law underscore the court's decision to reject the plaintiff's claims.