Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saroj Prajapati (Dead) W/O Late Shri ... vs Suman Gaud on 22 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7067
1 MA. No. 1843 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 22nd OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 1843 of 2025
SAROJ PRAJAPATI (DEAD) W/O LATE SHRI NAND KISHORE
PRAJAPATI THROUGH LRS (1) SONU AND OTHERS
Versus
SUMAN GAUD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadoriya - Advocate for appellants.
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity "the Code"), has been filed against order dated
27.01.2025 passed by III District Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in
RCSA No.84/2022 by which an application filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 of the Code has been rejected.
2. It appears that the Trial Court by order dated 08.07.2021 rejected the
application, however, in the light of order dated 11.11.2024 passed by this Court
in MA. No.6144/2023, the matter was remanded back to decide the application
afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
3. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant No.1 is the owner and in possession
of Aaraji No.189 area 1.400 hectares situated in Rajaudha. An agreement to sell
was executed on 04.03.2020 to the effect that the plaintiff would develop the plots
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7067
and defendant No.1 would execute the sale deed as per the instructions of
plaintiff. The land was agreed to be sold for a consideration amount of
Rs.2,26,03,400/- out of which the plaintiff has paid Rs.35,90,000/- to defendant
No.1 and it was agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid in installments.
When plaintiff after developing the plots started alienating the same, then she
requested defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed, however, on account of high
price of the sale deeds, intention of defendant No.1 became dishonest and she
started harassing the plaintiff and also started indulging in issuing notices to the
purchasers directly and to execute the sale deed directly. Accordingly, defendant
No.1 has filed a suit against plaintiff and her son which was registered as Civil
Suit No.85A/2020 and by way of counterblast, the plaintiff had also filed the Civil
Suit No.54A/2021. Earlier, the plaintiff had got an order of temporary injunction
and therefore the execution of sale deeds was stopped but after vacation of the
interim order defendant No.1 has again started alienating the property. Thus, it
was pleaded that the plaintiff has already spent Rs.60 lacs in development of the
plots and it was prayed that till final decision of the case, defendant No.1 may be
restrained from alienating the property and also be restrained from partition or
further alienation and similarly defendants No.2 to 13 and 17 be directed not to
raise construction.
4. Defendant No.1 filed her written statement and claimed that agreement to
sell has already been terminated. In fact, it is the plaintiff who is illegally trying to
alienate the plot of defendant No.1 unauthorizedly. Plaintiff has no right or title in
the property. Defendant No.1 and the persons to whom she has alienated the
property are in possession and they are entitled to maintain the possession.
5. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, came to conclusion that some
of the cheques which were given by plaintiff to defendant No.1 had bounced.
Therefore, it was held that the plaintiff had no prima facie case in her favour.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7067
Furthermore, the plaintiff had no right or title over the property in dispute by
virtue of agreement to sell.
6. Challenging the order passed by the court below, it is submitted by counsel
for appellants that since an agreement to sell was executed between plaintiff and
defendant No.1, therefore, the court below should have restrained her from
alienating the property.
7. Heard learned counsel for appellants.
8. It is not out of place to mention here that earlier appellants had filed a suit
for permanent injunction. Later on, it was withdrawn without any liberty to file a
fresh suit. Furthermore, undisputedly, some of the cheques issued by plaintiff had
also bounced. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not commit any
mistake by holding that appellant has no prima facie case in her favour.
Furthermore, the agreement to sell would not transfer any right or title in her
favour. (Munishamappa Vs. M. Rama Reddy & Ors. decided on 02.11.2023 in
Civil Appeal No.10327/2011)
9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. Appeal
fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
