Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ravindra Feeds India Machhrauli Pvt ... vs Vandana Malik And Anr on 2 August, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098913
RSA-1041-2021 (O&M) 1
114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1041-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision : 02.08.2024
M/S RAVINDRA FEEDS INDIA MACHHRAULI PVT LTD ....Appellant
Versus
VANDANA MALIK AND ANR ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Rajesh K. Kataria, Advocate
for the appellant.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Plaintiff is in appeal.
2. For convenience, parties herein after are referred to by their
original position in the suit i.e. the appellant as plaintiff and the respondents
as defendants.
3. Plaintiff sought decree of declaration to the effect that the sale
deed bearing Vasika No.3251 dated 27th of March, 2009 and the
consequential mutation bearing No.3141 are illegal, null and void and not
binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Further decree of declaration was
sought to the effect that sale deed bearing Vasika No.437 dated 10th of May,
2010 and the consequential mutation No.2996 are legal, valid and binding
upon the rights of the parties. Thus, in a way the plaintiff challenged the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098913
sale deed dated 27th of March, 2009 in favour of the defendants and
propounded sale deed in his favour dated 10th of May, 2010.
4. Suit was resisted by the defendants. It was claimed that Karan
Singh son of Daiya was owner in possession of the suit property, agreed to
sell the same vide agreement to sell dated 6th of May, 2005 in favour of the
answering defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.2,60,000/- and received
Rs.60,000/- as earnest money. However, with a mala fide intention and to
defeat the rights of the defendant, he executed sale deed dated 28th of June,
2006 in favour of his son Sandeep Singh. Defendant No.1 filed suit seeking
decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6th of May, 2005
executed in her favour by Karan Singh son of Daiya the actual owner.
Initially the suit was dismissed. However later on in appeal the suit was
decreed. Executant of agreement to sell was directed to execute the sale
deed in favour of defendant No.1. In execution of the said decree, sale deed
was executed in favour of defendant No.1 on 27th of March, 2009 and thus to
claim that the sale deed was result of fraud was wrong and against the
record.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed
the following issues :
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration as
prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent
injunction as prayed for? OPP
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098913
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
present suit? OPD.
5. Relief"
5. While deciding Issues No.1 and 2 Courts below have held that it
stands proved that the sale deed dated 27th of March, 2009 has been executed
in favour of the defendant No.1 in execution of the decree of the Court and
thus it cannot be held that the same was result of any fraud and dismissed
the suit filed by the plaintiff.
6. Counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned
judgments and decree passed by the Courts below submits that the Courts
below have not considered his right of being a bona fide purchaser for
consideration. He further asserts that the plaintiff is in possession and
cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law.
7. I have heard counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone
through records of the case with his able assistance.
8. The title of Karan Singh is not disputed. It has already come on
record that Karan Singh entered into agreement to sell in favour of defendant
No.1 and in order to defeat her right executed sale deed in favour of his son
while suit for specific performance was pending against him. After
defendant No.1 succeeded in the civil suit, sale deed under challenge was
executed. Thus, sale deed being claimed by the plaintiff in his favour was
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098913
executed only with an intent to defeat the rights of defendant No.1 that too
after sale deed already stood executed in favour of defendant No.1 on 27th of
March, 2009. So far as prayer of the counsel for the appellant w.r.t.
possession of the plaintiff is concerned, the same is also misconceived. The
suit filed was simple suit for declaration.
9. In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere in the present appeal. Resultantly, the same is dismissed.
August 02, 2024 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
