JSS LAW COLLEGE – MOOT COURT – V SEM LLB

JKT22029

JSS LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT – V SEMESTER LL. B, 2024-2025

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AT GURUGRAM

O.S. NO: OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. AJAY VERMA…………………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF

v.

MR. BHUSHAN SINGH

MR. ARUN KUMAR……………………………………………………………. DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

COUNSEL OF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF

Sd/- Sd/-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

 JSS LAW COLLEGE – MOOT COURT – V SEM LLB

TABLE OF CONTENT

SL.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3

 BOOKS
 LEGISLATIONS
 LEGAL DATABASES

4. TABLE OF CASES 4
5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5
6. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6
7. ISSUES 7
8. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8
9. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9

1. WHETHER MR. AJAY VERMA IS THE RIGHTFUL 9-

OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE.

2. WHETHER THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN

MR. ARUN KUMAR AND MR. BHUSHAN SINGH
SHOULD BE DECLARED VOID AND CANCELLED.

3. WHETHER MR. ARUN KUMAR CAN BE

CONSIDERED A BONA FIDE PURCHASER FOR
VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE.

4. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY MR. AJAY VERMA

IS BARRED BY LIMITATION.

10. PRAYER x

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

& And

% Percentage

st
First
1
nd
Second
2
AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

CPC Code of Civil Procedure

Ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable

i.e., That is

TP Act Transfeer of Property Act, 1882

ICA Indian Contract Act, 1872

No. Number

Ors. and Anr. Others

Pg. Page

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

Sec. Section/s

U.O. I Union of India

u/s Under Section

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFFERED:

B. LEGISLATIONS AND REGULATIONS

C. LEGAL DATABASE

1. Manupatra.
2. SCC Online.
3. All India Reporter.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

 TABLE OF CASES

SL.NO NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

1.

2.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff submits that the Hon’ble District Court of Gurugram has jurisdiction to adjudicate
this matter. The property in question is situated in Gurugram, Haryana, and under Section 16 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, suits related to immovable property must be instituted in the
court where the property is situated.

The argument made by Defendant No. 1, regarding the execution of the sale deed in Delhi, is
irrelevant as the subject matter of the suit is immovable property located in Gurugram.

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2020, Mr. Arun Kumar, a wealthy businessman from New Delhi, bought 5 acres of agricultural
land on the outskirts of Gurugram, Haryana, from Mr. Bhushan Singh for 72 crores. The sale deed
was executed and registered, and Mr. Kumar took possession of the property.

Subsequently, Mr. Ajay Verma, a local farmer, filed a civil suit in the Gurugram District Court,
claiming rightful ownership of the land. He asserted that it was ancestral property belonging to his
family and argued that Mr. Singh had no authority to sell it due to a fraudulent transfer. Mr.
Verma stated that he only discovered the sale deed while visiting the Sub-Registrar’s office.

Mr. Arun Kumar defended himself by stating he was a bona fide purchaser who conducted due
diligence and was unaware of any title defects. He argued that the sale deed was valid under the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and claimed that Mr. Verma's suit was barred by limitation since
it was filed too late.

During the proceedings, it emerged that Mr. Singh had inherited the property under a will that was
allegedly forged. Mr. Verma's counsel contended that the will was never probated and should be
considered void, invalidating the sale.

Additionally, Mr. Kumar raised a procedural objection regarding jurisdiction, arguing that the sale
was executed in New Delhi and thus the case should be heard there. Mr. Verma's counsel
countered, asserting that since the property is in Gurugram, the local court had proper jurisdiction
to hear the case.

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
 ISSUES

I. WHETHER MR. AJAY VERMA IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE

PROPERTY IN DISPUTE?

II. WHETHER THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN MR. ARUN

KUMAR AND MR. BHUSHAN SINGH SHOULD BE DECLARED
VOID AND CANCELLED?

III. WHETHER MR. ARUN KUMAR CAN BE CONSIDERED A BONA

FIDE PURCHASER FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE?

IV. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY MR. AJAY VERMA IS BARRED BY LIMITATION?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER MR. AJAY VERMA IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE

PROPERTY IN DISPUTE?
The plaintiff is the actual owner of the said property, and it has been devolved to him
from his ancestors. The property had been illegally transferred to Mr. Bhushan Singh by
fraudulent means because of which he retains no right to sell the same. The plaintiff was
unaware of the fraudulent transfer until recently when he stumbled upon the sale deed
during a visit to the Sub-Registrar's office.

II. WHETHER THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN MR. ARUN KUMAR AND
MR. BHUSHAN SINGH SHOULD BE DECLARED VOID AND CANCELLED?
The sale deed executed between Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Bhushan Singh should be
declared void and has to be cancelled for the reasons that Mr. Bhushan lacked a proper
and true title over the property and thus had no right whatsoever to create a third party
interest in the said property.

III. WHETHER MR. ARUN KUMAR CAN BE CONSIDERED A BONA FIDE

PURCHASER FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE?
Mr. Arjun Kumar cannot be considered as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice
as he hasn’t exercised due diligence while purchasing the land. He hasn’t enquired
enough regarding the title of the property.

IV. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY MR. AJAY VERMA IS BARRED BY

LIMITATION?
The suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose
recently when the plaintiff came across the sale deed on his recent visit to the sub-
9
 registrar’s office.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER MR. AJAY VERMA IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY

IN DISPUTE?
It is most respectfully and humbly submitted by the Plaintiff that the suit property has
devolved to the plaintiff from his ancestors. The suit property has been in the possession and
ownership of the plaintiff’s antecedents since ages. The plaintiff alleges that Mr. Bhushan
Singh has made the suit property in his name by fraudulent means. While Mr. Singh claims
to be the owner of the suit property through his father’s will, the plaintiff submits that the
said will was neither genuine nor probated. The plaintiff humbly submits that the will which
is claimed to be true by Mr. Singh is a forged will. Mr. Singh is in no way related to the suit
property nor are his antecedents. Mr. Singh has taken over possession of the suit property
fraudulently defeating the plaintiff’s interest and title in the suit property, thereby violating
the provisions of law. With a malafide intention to evade the procedure of law, Mr. Singh
made hectic efforts to sell the suit property and only on the said sale, the plaintiff got the
knowledge that Mr. Singh has tried to defeat the plaintiff’s interest in the suit property with
false and forged documents showing that the property stands in his name.

1. Ownership and Title:

I.1 Claim of Ancestral Ownership: The plaintiff asserts that the land is ancestral property
belonging to his family. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, ancestral
property is defined as property inherited by a Hindu from his ancestors.
I.2 Validity of the Sale Transaction: The plaintiff contends that Mr. Bhushan Singh had no
right to sell the property, which was fraudulently transferred to him through a forged will.
In accordance with the principles laid out in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any
transfer made by a person who does not possess legal title or right to the property is void
ab initio.

10
 I.3 Probation of Will: The plaintiff submits that the will was never probated. A will that has
not undergone probate lacks legal standing, which could invalidate Mr. Singh's claim to
ownership. According to Indian jurisprudence, an unprobated will does not confer any title
or rights over the property.

2. Fraudulent Transfer:

2.1 Equitable Principles: The doctrine of "bona fide purchaser for value" protects parties
who purchase property without notice of defects in title. However, the plaintiff submits
that Mr. Singh engaged in fraudulent conduct, and therefore Mr. Arun Kumar’s claim as a
bona fide purchaser must be undermined. Thus, the principle of equity favors the plaintiff
as Mr. Arun Kumar's possession is based on a fraudulent transaction.

3. Procedural and Jurisdictional Issues

3.1 Jurisdiction: The plaintiff submits that the property jurisdiction is typically determined by
the location of the property. Since the land in question is located in Gurugram, the
Gurugram District Court holds proper jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908.
3.2 Limitation Period: The plaintiff shows under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and
that he was not aware of the sale deed until his recent discovery at the Sub-Registrar's
office, therefore the limitation period should be calculated from the time he became aware
of the facts leading to his claim.

The Plaintiff submits that the property in dispute is ancestral property belonging to his family
for generations. Under Hindu law, ancestral property cannot be alienated without the consent
of the coparceners. The Plaintiff, being a coparcener, was neither consulted nor did he give
consent for the sale of the property.

The alleged will, based on which Mr. Bhushan Singh claims ownership, was never probated and
is therefore legally invalid. Under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a will
concerning immovable property must be probated in order to be effective. The absence of probate
renders the transfer of property void.

11
4.1.1. Ancestral Property Under Hindu Law
The Plaintiff argues that the property in question is ancestral property, inherited by his family
through generations. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, ancestral property refers to property
inherited up to four generations of male lineage. The Plaintiff, as a coparcener, has a vested right
in the property by birth, irrespective of whether the property is divided or undivided. In the case
of Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan & Ors., AIR 1960 SC 335, the Supreme Court held
that no coparcener can alienate or transfer ancestral property without the consent of the other
coparceners. This means Mr. Bhushan Singh, a coparcener, had no unilateral right to sell the
property without the express consent of Mr. Ajay Verma.

4.1.2. Invalid Will and Lack of Probate

Mr. Bhushan Singh claims ownership of the property through a will allegedly executed by his
father. However, this will was never probated, rendering it legally ineffective for the purpose of
transferring immovable property. According to Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925,
no right as an executor or legatee can be established under a will without probate. In Clarence
Pais & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1151, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a will
affecting immovable property must be probated to be valid. In this case, since the will was not
probated, the inheritance claimed by Mr. Bhushan Singh is invalid, and Mr. Ajay Verma remains
the rightful owner of the property.

4.1.3. Conclusion on Ownership

Thus, Mr. Ajay Verma’s ownership rights over the property are based on his ancestral entitlement,
and any transfer of the property without his consent, including the sale by Mr. Bhushan Singh, is
legally void. Consequently, the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the disputed land.

12
II. WHETHER THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN MR. ARUN KUMAR AND
MR. BHUSHAN SINGH SHOULD BE DECLARED VOID AND CANCELLED?

The Plaintiff asserts that the transfer of property by Mr. Bhushan Singh to Mr. Arun Kumar was
based on fraudulent means. The property was transferred without the Plaintiff's knowledge and
consent, violating his ancestral rights.
As the sale deed is based on a fraudulent transaction, it is void ab initio. The Hon'ble Court is
empowered under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to cancel the sale deed, as it affects
the Plaintiff’s rightful ownership of the property.

4.2.1. Fraudulent Transfer of Property

The Plaintiff asserts that the sale of the property by Mr. Bhushan Singh to Mr. Arun Kumar was
carried out fraudulently, without legal authority, and without the consent of all rightful owners.
According to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any written instrument that is void or
voidable and may cause serious injury to a party can be cancelled by the court. In this case, the
sale deed executed by Mr. Bhushan Singh was based on an alleged forged will and was executed
without informing the Plaintiff, who has a legitimate right to the property.

In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853, the Supreme Court held that
fraud vitiates all transactions. The sale deed executed by Mr. Bhushan Singh amounts to a
fraudulent transfer, as it was based on false representations of ownership. Therefore, the sale deed
between Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Bhushan Singh should be cancelled as it has caused significant
injury to the Plaintiff's legal rights over the property.

4.2.2. Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice

Mr. Arun Kumar, the Defendant No. 1, has argued that he was a bona fide purchaser for value
without notice of any defects in title. However, under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, a transferee can only claim protection if they took reasonable care to ascertain that the
transferor had authority to transfer. In this case, there was an inherent defect in the title due to the
invalid will, and Defendant No. 1 failed to verify the ancestral status of the property and the
Plaintiff’s coparcenary rights. Consequently, Mr. Arun Kumar cannot be protected as a bona fide
purchaser.

4.2.3. Conclusion on Sale Deed

The sale deed executed between Mr. Bhushan Singh and Mr. Arun Kumar is tainted by fraud and
must be cancelled under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to restore the Plaintiff’s
legal ownership of the property.

13
III. WHETHER MR. ARUN KUMAR CAN BE CONSIDERED A BONA FIDE
PURCHASER FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE?

4.3.1. The Plaintiff prays for possession of the disputed property, as he is the rightful owner
and has been wrongfully dispossessed due to the illegal transfer by Defendant No. 2.
4.3.2. The Plaintiff is entitled to possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,
as he has been unlawfully deprived of the property.

4.3.1. Right to Possession Based on Ownership

The Plaintiff is the rightful owner of the property, as demonstrated above. The natural consequence of
being declared the owner of immovable property is the right to possess and enjoy it. As per Section 5
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person entitled to the possession of immovable property can
recover it through due legal process. The Plaintiff, having been wrongfully dispossessed by virtue of
the illegal sale deed, is entitled to reclaim possession of the property.
4.3.2. Recovery of Possession Under Specific Relief Act
According to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person dispossessed of immovable
property without his consent can seek recovery of possession. In K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR
1954 Bom 358, it was held that possession is a matter of fact, and any person unlawfully dispossessed
has the right to recover possession. Since Mr. Arun Kumar’s possession of the land is based on a
fraudulent transfer, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek restoration of possession.
4.3.3. Conclusion on Possession
The Plaintiff, being the rightful owner of the ancestral property, is entitled to recover possession from
Defendant No. 1, Mr. Arun Kumar, who currently holds the property unlawfully. The possession
should be handed over to the Plaintiff immediately upon the cancellation of the sale deed.

14
IV. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY MR. AJAY VERMA IS BARRED BY
LIMITATION?

The Defendant No. 1, Mr. Arun Kumar, has contended that the suit is barred by limitation.
However, the Plaintiff submits that he became aware of the fraudulent transfer only recently
when he discovered the registered sale deed at the Sub-Registrar's office.
Under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period begins from the date
when the fraud was discovered. Since the Plaintiff discovered the fraud only recently, the suit
is within the prescribed limitation period.

4.4.1. Applicability of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963

The Defendant No. 1 has argued that the Plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation. However, the Plaintiff
submits that he discovered the fraud only recently when he found the registered sale deed during his visit
to the Sub-Registrar’s office. Under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in cases of fraud or mistake,
the limitation period begins from the date the fraud was discovered, not the date of the fraudulent act itself.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s suit is well within the limitation period, as it was filed promptly after discovering
the fraudulent transfer.
4.4.2. Discovery of Fraud and Limitation Period
The Plaintiff had no knowledge of the fraudulent sale until he discovered the sale deed while accessing
public records at the Sub-Registrar’s office. In P.C. Aggarwal v. S. Lakshmi Narayan, 2010 (1) SCC
593, the Supreme Court held that the limitation period in cases of fraud begins only when the aggrieved
party discovers the fraud. The Plaintiff, upon becoming aware of the fraudulent transaction, has filed this
suit within the statutory limitation period.
4.4.3. Conclusion on Limitation
Since the Plaintiff’s discovery of the fraud occurred recently, the suit is not barred by limitation. The
Plaintiff’s right to challenge the sale and seek recovery of the property is still valid under the provisions of
the Limitation Act.

15
 PRAYER

In light of the above submissions, the Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to:

a) Declare that the Plaintiff, Mr. Ajay Verma, is the rightful owner of the property.

b) Cancel the sale deed executed between Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Bhushan Singh.

c) Grant a permanent injunction restraining Mr. Arun Kumar from alienating or creating any
third-party rights over the property.

d) Direct possession of the property to be handed over to the Plaintiff.

e) Award costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.

f) Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case in the interest of justice.

16