Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harendra Singh Malik vs Ammi Patel Alias Ahmad Sayeed on 5 February, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5446
1 FA-63-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 63 of 2015
HARENDRA SINGH MALIK AND OTHERS
Versus
AMMI PATEL ALIAS AHMAD SAYEED
Appearance:
Shri N. S. Ruprah - Senior Advocate with Shri Navtej Ruprah - Advocate for the
appellants.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Deepak Raghuwanshi and
Shri Tarandeep Singh Ajmani - Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 27/11/2024.
2. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment
and decree dated 17/12/2014 in Civil Suit No.24-A/2008 (Ammi Patel
vs. Harendra Singh Malik & others) whereby the learned Sixth
Additional District Judge, Bhopal has decreed the suit of the plaintiff
directing the plaintiff to receive balance sale consideration of
Rs.16,20,000/- within one month and to execute the sale deed in favour
of plaintiff/respondent No.1 for the suit property totalling 8.05 acres as
mentioned in Para-2 of the judgment of the trial Court in village
Chandanpura Patwari Halka No.40, Tehsil Huzur District Bhopal.
3. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that
respondent/plaintiff did not approach in appellants within 60 days of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5446
2 FA-63-2015
agreement dated 06/05/2006 (Ex.P/1) with the request to execute the sale
deed, therefore, in light of the judgment passed in the case of Vijay
Bahadur vs. Surendra Kumar, 2003(2) MPLJ 86; the suit should have
been dismissed. The period of 60 days have already expired on
05/07/2006, therefore, agreement stood cancelled. The mutation
proceedings consumed time because of an objection given by Mr.
M.R.Khan, the power of attorney of Farooq Ali and others persons who
were the original owners of the suit lands from whom the appellants
purchased the suit lands. Farooq Ali is a witness of the plaintiff and he
filed an affidavit in favour of respondent/plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff
indirectly obstructed in the mutation proceedings with the help of Farooq
Ali. The agreement (Ex.P/1) casts a clear duty on plaintiff to cooperate in
the mutation proceedings (condition No.4) but that was not complied
with.
4. It is further submitted by the appellants/defendants that even after
mutation proceedings were done on 30/10/2006, plaintiff remained silent
for a very long period. After 44 days, he send legal notice in December,
2006 and again 14 months remained silent before filing of the civil suit
on 24/01/2008. Neither in the legal notice (Ex.P/3) nor in his plaint,
plaintiff mentioned that he had availability of Rs.16,20,000/- with him. It
is also submitted that suit was under valued. The suit has been valued at
Rs.18,00,000/- and Court fee of Rs,1,73,800/- should have been paid but
Court fee of Rs.92,200/- is only paid, therefore seeks dismissal of the
suit.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5446
3 FA-63-2015
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents support the
impugned judgment and submitted that suit has been rightly decreed.
6. In the trial Court, following issues were framed and the finding
against them were given, free translation of which in English is as under
:-
Issues Findings
Whether defendant has conducted
mutation proceedings in respect of suit
land during the period stipulated under
1. condition No.4 of agreement dated Not proved.
06/05/2006 executed between the
plaintiff and defendant in respect of sale
of suit land ?
Whether the plaintiff was ready to pay
the balance sale consideration in respect
2. of suit property within the fixed period Proved
as per said agreement for execution of
registered sale deed ?
Whether despite plaintiff being ready to
perform his part within the fixed period,
3. Proved
the defendants had not executed the
registered sale deed ?
The suit of the
plaintiff is decreed
4. Relief and cost.
as per para-28 of
the judgement.
7. It is seen on perusal of the record specially the admission made by
the appellants/defendants in the trial Court that the decree cannot be
interfered for the reasons that the case of the defendants/appellants is that
plaintiff deliberately obstructed in revenue proceedings, therefore
condition No.4 of agreement could not be complied with. It is also seen
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5446
4 FA-63-2015
that in sale agreement (Ex.P/1) dated 06/05/2006 condition No.4 is that
in the mutation proceedings, buyer (plaintiff/respondent) shall cooperate
with the seller (defendant/appellants) but what cooperation was sought
and not given is not clear either in documentary evidence or in written
statement or in oral evidence.
8. On the other hand, behind the scene non-cooperation cannot be
adjudicated by the trial Court or this Court if it is not spelled clearly.
During the cross-examination in para-5, it has been asked and admitted
by the plaintiff that as per agreement he did not pay the money to the
defendants for which he has explained that suit land was not mutated in
favour of the defendant, therefore, he did not pay the amount. This
admission is of not any help to the appellants/defendants. Order of
mutation dated 30/10/2006 (Annexure D/2) whereas as per agreement it
was to be done within 60 days from 06/05/2006 meaning thereby till
06/07/2006. Therefore, it is seen that Harendra Malik and Harmatit Singh
Malik obtained mutation order after much delay, therefore they are
hardly in a position to blame the plaintiff. Defendant Harendra in cross-
examination para -11 also admitted that mutation could not be completed
within 60 days as per the agreement. He also admitted that he has not
filed copy of the mutation proceedings so as to establish that atleast
mutation application was filed at the earliest after the agreement
(Ex.P/1).
9. He further admitted that this is true that till they replied to the notice
of the plaintiff (Ex.D/4 and Ex.D/5) mutation could not be completed. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5446
5 FA-63-2015
fact, in para-12 of the cross-examination, on being asked whether they
are ready to execute the sale deed at the current rate then witnesses
replied that he is ready to execute the sale deed at the current rate
meaning thereby the matter is regarding escalated price of the land and
not some other matter as stated in the appeal. Defendant's witness Dr.
Smt, Ravina Rajpal in para-11 of her cross-examination, submitted that
in the mutation proceedings she was not a party. Defendant's witness
Jasmit Singh Malik in para-10 of his cross-examination also admitted
that mutation proceedings could not be completed within 60 days and it
is true that in reply Ex.D/6 they refused registry.
10. Both the parties have filed written synopsis but when the case is
clear on facts then citation on different facts would be of no help to
either party as a little change in facts, changes the precedent value of a
case. Therefore, on the basis of admission, pleadings and documents, it is
found that the Trial Court has rightly decided the issue no.1 in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants that mutation proceedings were
not completed as per the agreement by the defendants.
11. Similarly, issue no.2 decided in favour of the plaintiff is also
correct in the facts and circumstances & evidence of the case, as held and
proved by the trial Court that plaintiff was ready to pay balance sale
consideration in respect of suit property, as it cannot be held that the
plaintiff was not ready to pay the sale consideration as the suit property
was not recorded in their names.
12. Similarly, in the light of finding on issue not 1 & 2, issue no.3 also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5446
6 FA-63-2015
correctly decided in favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff is found to be
ready and willing to perform his part under the agreement (Ex.P/1) and
defendants did not execute the decree as per the agreement, it is to be
noted that there is no contrary evidence to hold otherwise.
13. Considering the pleadings, evidence and facts and circumstances of
the case, it is found that the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and no
interference can be made in the judgment and decree dated 17/12/2014.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment date
17/12/2014 is hereby affirmed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
