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 DEFENDANTS

COUNSEL OF PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF

Sd/- Sd/-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 JSS LAW COLLEGE – MOOT COURT – V SEM LLB

TABLE OF CONTENT

SL.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS i
2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ii
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES iii

 BOOKS
 LEGISLATIONS
 LEGAL DATABASES

4. TABLE OF CASES iv
5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION v
6. STATEMENT OF FACTS vi
7. ISSUES vii
8. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS viii
9. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ix

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

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 DEFENDANT

 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

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 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 DEFENDANT

 TABLE OF CASES

SL.NO NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

1.

2.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 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?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 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- registrar’s office.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether Defendant No. 1, Mr. Arun Kumar, is a bona fide purchaser for value
without notice?

4.1.1. Bona Fide Purchaser for Value

Defendant No. 1 submits that he is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any defect in
the title. He paid ₹72 crores for the property and acted in good faith, relying on the
representations and documents provided by Defendant No. 2. Section 41 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, provides that a transferee who purchases property in good faith, for value,
and without notice of any defect in the transferor's title, is protected.

Relevant Case Law:

 Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 404 – The Supreme Court held
that a person who purchases property in good faith, without notice of any prior claims, is
entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser.

4.1.2. Due Diligence Conducted

Defendant No. 1 conducted due diligence by verifying the title of Defendant No. 2 through legal
consultation and checking records at the Sub-Registrar’s office. There was no indication of any
pending dispute or fraud in relation to the property. The Plaintiff has not presented any evidence
to suggest that Defendant No. 1 had knowledge of any alleged defect in the title.

Relevant Case Law:

 Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 319 – The Court emphasized
that a bona fide purchaser for value who has conducted due diligence cannot be held liable
for a defective title unless it is proven that the purchaser had prior knowledge of the
defect.

ISSUE 2: Whether the sale deed executed between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 is
valid?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

4.2.1. Validity of the Sale Deed
The sale deed was executed and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908. Once a sale deed is registered, it is
conclusive evidence of the transaction between the parties, and the Plaintiff cannot seek to
invalidate it without clear proof of fraud.

Relevant Case Law:

 Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656 –
The Supreme Court held that a registered sale deed is valid and enforceable unless
successfully challenged on the grounds of fraud or coercion.

4.2.2. Defendant No. 2's Right to Sell the Property

Defendant No. 2, Mr. Bhushan Singh, inherited the property from his father. The Plaintiff’s
allegation that the will under which Defendant No. 2 inherited the property is forged has not been
proven. Even if the will was not probated, it does not automatically invalidate the transfer of
property, as Defendant No. 2 was in possession and had acted as the owner of the property.

Relevant Case Law:

 K.B. Sudhakara Shenoy & Anr. v. K.B. Subhakar Shenoy & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 624
– The Supreme Court held that the absence of probate does not invalidate the transfer of
property unless there is concrete evidence of fraud.

ISSUE 3: Whether the Plaintiff’s claim for possession is maintainable?

4.3.1. Right to Possession Based on Title

Defendant No. 1 is in legal possession of the property based on a duly executed and registered
sale deed. Under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, possession of immovable property
can only be claimed by a person with a valid title. Since Defendant No. 1 holds a registered sale
deed, the Plaintiff cannot claim possession without first invalidating the sale deed.

Relevant Case Law:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

  Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 733 – The Court held that possession of
immovable property cannot be disturbed unless the title of the person in possession is
shown to be defective.

4.3.2. Plaintiff's Claim Based on Ancestral Rights

The Plaintiff claims that the property is ancestral land, but has not provided sufficient evidence to
establish this claim. Under Hindu law, a sale of ancestral property is valid if it is done for legal
necessity or with the consent of the coparceners. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the
sale by Defendant No. 2 was illegal or in violation of ancestral rights.

Relevant Case Law:

 Sundaramma v. Doraiswamy, AIR 1980 SC 978 – The Supreme Court held that a
coparcener’s alienation of ancestral property is not void but voidable, subject to proof that
it was done without legal necessity or consent.

ISSUE 4: Whether the Plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation?

4.4.1. Limitation Period for Declaration of Ownership

The Plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which
prescribes a limitation period of three years for suits seeking a declaration of ownership. The sale
deed was executed in 2020, and the Plaintiff has failed to challenge it within the prescribed time
frame.

Relevant Case Law:

 Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 9 SCC 126 – The Supreme Court held
that a suit for declaration of title must be filed within the limitation period, and delay in
filing without sufficient cause bars the suit.

4.4.2. Discovery of Fraud

The Plaintiff alleges that he only recently discovered the fraud. However, the Plaintiff could have
discovered the sale deed, a public document, at the Sub-Registrar’s office earlier with reasonable
diligence. Under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Plaintiff cannot claim an extension

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

of the limitation period without proving that the discovery of fraud was made despite due
diligence.

Relevant Case Law:

 P.C. Aggarwal v. S. Lakshmi Narayan, 2010 (1) SCC 593 – The Court held that parties
must act promptly after discovering a transaction that affects their rights. Failing to do so
bars the suit on the ground of limitation.

ISSUE 1: Whether Defendant No. 1, Mr. Arun Kumar, is a bona fide purchaser
for value without notice?

4.1.1. Bona Fide Purchaser for Value

The Defendant submits that he is a bona fide purchaser for value, having paid ₹72 crores for the
purchase of the property, without any knowledge of any prior claims or disputes. Under Section
41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transferee who has purchased property in good faith
and for valuable consideration, without knowledge of any defect in the transferor's title, is
protected. The Defendant conducted due diligence, including obtaining legal advice and verifying
the title documents, before entering into the transaction with Mr. Bhushan Singh.

Relevant Case Law:

 Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 404 – The Supreme Court held
that a person who purchases property in good faith, for value, and without notice of any
defect in the title, is entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser. The onus is on the
party alleging fraud to prove that the purchaser had knowledge of any such fraud.

4.1.2. Absence of Fraud or Notice

The Defendant further contends that he had no knowledge of any alleged ancestral claims by the
Plaintiff. Mr. Bhushan Singh represented himself as the lawful owner of the property, and there
was no public record or notice indicating that the property was disputed or subject to any claims
by Mr. Ajay Verma. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 319, the
Supreme Court held that a bona fide purchaser is protected from claims of fraud when there is no
evidence that the purchaser had knowledge of the fraudulent circumstances.

4.1.3. Conclusion on Bona Fide Purchase

Therefore, Defendant No. 1, Mr. Arun Kumar, is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of
any alleged defects in the title, and as such, his rights to the property are protected under the law.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

ISSUE 2: Whether the sale deed executed between Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr.
Bhushan Singh is valid?

4.2.1. Valid Execution and Registration of Sale Deed

The Defendant asserts that the sale deed was executed and registered in accordance with the law.
The registration of the sale deed under the Registration Act, 1908, creates a presumption of
regularity and validity of the transaction. Once a sale deed is registered, it becomes conclusive
evidence of the transaction between the parties unless challenged on grounds of fraud or forgery.

Relevant Case Law:

 Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656 –
The Supreme Court held that a sale deed executed and registered in compliance with the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act is a valid and
enforceable document, which transfers ownership of the property to the purchaser.

4.2.2. Defendant No. 2’s Ownership and Authority to Sell

Defendant No. 2, Mr. Bhushan Singh, inherited the property from his father, and there is no
conclusive evidence to suggest that the will was forged. Even if the will had not been probated,
this would not automatically invalidate the sale deed. In K.B. Sudhakara Shenoy & Anr. v. K.B.
Subhakar Shenoy & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 624, the Supreme Court held that the absence of
probate does not necessarily negate the legality of the transfer unless fraud is proven.

4.2.3. Good Faith of the Purchaser

The Defendant relied on the title documents provided by Mr. Bhushan Singh, who had been in
possession of the property. In the absence of any adverse claims or notices, the Defendant had no
reason to doubt the validity of the sale. The sale was conducted in good faith and in compliance
with the law. In Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy & Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 601, the Court
emphasized that a bona fide purchaser who takes all reasonable steps to verify the transferor's title
is entitled to legal protection.

4.2.4. Conclusion on Sale Deed Validity

The sale deed executed between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 is valid, duly executed,
and registered, and therefore, the Defendant’s ownership of the property is legally sound.

ISSUE 3: Whether the Plaintiff’s claim for possession is maintainable?

4.3.1. Possession Based on Valid Title

The Defendant is in legal possession of the property based on a duly executed sale deed. As per
Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, possession of immovable property can be claimed by
a party with a valid title. Since the Defendant holds a registered sale deed, the Plaintiff cannot
claim possession without first proving the invalidity of the sale deed.

Relevant Case Law:

 Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 733 – The Supreme Court held that
possession of immovable property cannot be disturbed unless the title of the party in
possession is shown to be defective or invalid.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

4.3.2. Plaintiff’s Alleged Right Based on Ancestral Claim
The Plaintiff’s claim is based on ancestral rights, but these rights have not been conclusively
established in this case. Under Hindu law, the sale of ancestral property by a coparcener is valid if
done for legal necessity or with the consent of other coparceners. In Sundaramma v.
Doraiswamy, AIR 1980 SC 978, the Supreme Court held that an alienation by a coparcener is
not automatically void but voidable, and the burden is on the challenging party to prove that the
alienation was without consent or legal necessity. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Mr.
Bhushan Singh acted unlawfully in selling the property.

4.3.3. Conclusion on Possession

Since the Defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value and holds valid possession of the property,
the Plaintiff’s claim for possession is not maintainable.

ISSUE 4: Whether the Plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation?

4.4.1. Applicability of Limitation Act

The Plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which
prescribes a period of three years for suits seeking a declaration of ownership. The sale deed in
favor of the Defendant was executed and registered in 2020, and the Plaintiff has failed to take
any action within the three-year limitation period.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

 PRAYER

In light of the above submissions, the Defendants respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to:

a. Dismiss the Plaintiff’s suit with costs.

b. Declare that Defendant No. 1, Mr. Arun Kumar, is a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice, and the rightful owner of the disputed property.

c. Declare that the sale deed executed between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 is valid and
enforceable under law.

d. Reject the Plaintiff’s claim for possession and declare the Plaintiff’s suit as barred by
limitation.

e. Grant any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT