The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the plaintiffs directed against the order dated April 6, 2023, passed on the interlocutory application filed by the third Defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, rejecting the plaint. The Court observed that it is a settled position of law that if the price is not received by the vendor, the only remedy available to him is to sue for the recovery of sale consideration.
Brief Facts:
Plaintiff No.1, Ponnuswamy, his wife, and two minor children executed the sale dated December 8, 2004, conveying the suit properties in favor of Defendant No.1. Thereafter they filed the instant suit for a declaration that the sale deed dated 08.12.2004 executed by them is null and void on the ground that no consideration had passed to them. Defendant No. 3 filed the instant application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law. By the impugned order, the said application was allowed. Hence, this appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsels for the Appellants argued that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC because Trial Court failed to appreciate that no consideration was paid by Defendant No.1. Further, he contended that the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs is null and void for want of consideration; it was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no sale as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 because neither the consideration was paid by Defendant No.1 nor there was any promise to pay the consideration.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsels for the Respondents argued that plaintiffs’ suit for a declaration that the sale deed is null and void is not maintainable in law and the only remedy available to them is to seek for recovery of sale consideration. Amplifying this contention, he submitted that the sale was complete with the execution and registration of the sale deed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the point that arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the plaint by the Trial Court on the ground that the suit is barred by law calls for interference.
The Court observed that even if the entire sale consideration was not paid, the same would not be a ground for cancellation of the sale deed. The Court remarked that it is a settled position of law that if the price is not received by the vendor, the only remedy available to him is to sue for the recovery of sale consideration.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there is no error in the impugned order warranting interference.
Case Title: M. Ponnuswamy & Ors. vs Dharmendra Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Hon’ble Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda
Case no.: R.F.A NO.922 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. S. Sreevatsa
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
