The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari of the apex court in the case of Balram Singh V. Kelo Devi held that the plaintiff cleverly prayed for relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on a such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get relief by clever drafting.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent- Orignal Plaintiff filed the suit before the trial court for a permanent injunction only. The said suit was filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell. The original plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing her possession of the suit property.
The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the original plaintiff was unable to prove the agreement to sell. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court were confirmed by the high court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the original suit filed by the original plaintiff was only for the purpose of permanent injunction solely on the basis of the agreement to sell. It was further contended that an unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence and the first appellate court and the high court has committed a grave error in passing a decree for a permanent injunction. It is further argued that the learned first appellate Court and the High Court failed to recognize that the original plaintiff's lawsuit was only for a permanent injunction and that, thanks to some deft wording, she did not request relief for the specific performance of the agreement to sell because she knew she would lose the suit on the grounds of an unregistered agreement to sell. It is argued that the original plaintiff would not be entitled to a decree for a permanent injunction based on such an unregistered document if she is unable to obtain the substantive relief of specific performance of the unregistered agreement to sell.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the according to the established legal principle that an unregistered document may be used for collateral purposes, the first appellate Court and the High Court correctly issued a decree for a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from interfering with her possession while taking the agreement to sell into consideration.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simpliciter for a permanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for a collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get relief even for a permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession which was allowed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff cleverly prayed for relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on the such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get relief by clever drafting. The learned first appellate Court and the High Court have committed a grave error in passing a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant and dismissing the counter-claim filed by the original defendant.
CASE NAME- Balram Singh V. Kelo Devi
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6733 OF 2022
DATE-23.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
