Parvinder Singh Saluja vs Late Ravindra Singh S/O Late Harwansh ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3573 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Parvinder Singh Saluja vs Late Ravindra Singh S/O Late Harwansh ... on 7 February, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                  1
                 IN        THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                         AT INDORE
                                              BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                     ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                      MISC. PETITION No. 670 of 2024

               BETWEEN:-
               PARVINDER SINGH SALUJA S/O LATE HARWANSH
               SINGH SALUJA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
               ADVOCATE R/O 115, RAJENDRA MARG DHAR
               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                         .....PETITIONER
               (BY SHRI BALDEEP SINGH GANDH - ADVOCATE)

               AND
               1.         LATE RAVINDRA SINGH S/O LATE HARWANSH
                          SINGH SALUJA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
                          JASVINDER KAUR WD/O RAVINDRA SINGH,
                          AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O IN FRONT OF
                          MARATHA     MANDIR     RAJENDRA    MARG
                          DISTT.DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

               2.         JASVEERS SINGH @ JAS S/O LATE RAVINDRA
                          SINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. IN FRONT OF
                          MARATHA MANDIR, RAJENDRA MARG, DHAR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

               3.         MANINDER SINGH @ AMIT S/O LATE RAVINDRA
                          SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, IN FRONT OF
                          MARATHA MANDIR, RAJENDRA MARG, DHAR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

               4.         DINESH S/O MANGILAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT
                          68 YEARS, R/O. 269, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG,
                          PIPLI BAZAR, DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

               5.         AKHILESH S/O RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 47
                          YEAR S , SARASWATI NAGAR, DHAR (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
                 6.
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE          STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DHAR
Signing time: 2/13/2024
7:00:07 PM
                          DISTT. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                       2
                                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
               (BY SHRI MUKESH PARWAL - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                          This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
               following:
                                                       ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff / petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 26/10/2023 passed in MCA.No.23/2023 by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, District Indore affirming the order

dated 2/9/2023 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/2023 by the Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Indore whereby his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuance of temporary injunction had been rejected.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that on 24/12/1995 he had entered into an agreement to sale with respect to the suit land with one Dinesh Chandra S/o. Mangilal Sharma upon payment of earnest money of Rs.1,20,000/- followed by delivery of possession. Original defendant No.1 Ravindra Singh was his brother hence the plaintiff got the agreement to sale executed in favour of Ravindra Singh. A power of attorney was also executed in his favour by Dinesh Chandra. On 29/8/2014 Ravindra Singh had executed a power of attorney in favour of plaintiff giving all the rights in the suit land to him including the right to its transfer. An agreement was also executed between them on that day upon payment of Rs.50,000/- to defendant No.1. It was agreed that 80% of the income from the suit land would be retained by the plaintiff and remaining 20%

would be retained by Ravindra Singh. On the allegation that defendant No.1 is

not performing his part of the contract the claim was instituted by the plaintiff

for specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction.

4. Along with the plaint the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for issuance of temporary injunction restraining Ravindra Singh from misusing the agreement to sale and from alienating the suit land in any manner. The application was contested by the defendants and has been rejected by both the Courts below.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the record.

6 . The plaintiff contends that the agreement to sale with respect to the suit land was executed between him and Dinesh Chandra on 24/12/1995. Documentation of the same was however done in name of Ravindra Singh. It does not appear that plaintiff has ever initiated any proceedings for specific performance of that contract. The contention of plaintiff in this regard is merely oral and the agreement which had been executed by Dinesh Chandra was in favour of Ravindra Singh on strength of which he had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against Dinesh Chandra and others which was decreed by the trial Court. However in appeal having been preferred against the said judgment bearing F.A.No.1970/2018 a compromise was arrived at between the parties by virtue of which Ravindra Singh relinquished all his right, title and interest in the suit land in favour of Dinesh Chandra and others. Thereafter he

ceased to have any right or title over the suit land. The plaintiff is claiming specific performance of contract entered into by him with Ravindra Singh. However, since Ravindra Singh himself did not have any surviving title

Signature Notsubsequent Verified to the compromise having been arrived at in the first appeal as Signed by: SHAILESH aforesaid, there prima facie does not appear to be any right available to the MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 2/13/2024 7:00:07 PM

plaintiff for seeking specific performance of contract against him and upon his death against his legal representatives.

7. Moreover, it is observed that upon death of Ravindra Singh his legal representatives had been brought on record but no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff against them as has been specifically observed by the appellate Court. The relief of temporary injunction which has been sought for by the plaintiff is also not against them. It is thus difficult to perceive as to what relief can be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

8 . The fact remains that subsequent to entering into compromise with Dinesh Chandra and others in the first appeal, no right survived upon Ravindra Singh and instead it is Dinesh Chandra who would be the owner of the suit land. The agreement executed with him by plaintiff was on 4/12/1995 and no relief of specific performance of that contract has been sought for by plaintiff against him. The relief has been sought on the basis of the agreement dated 29/8/2014 which for the reasons as aforesaid prima facie cannot be granted to the plaintiff.

9. Thus in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error having been committed by the Courts below in rejecting the application for issuance of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed in limine.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-