Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yuvraj Arora And Others vs Bhupinder Singh And Another on 23 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010140
SAO-2-2024 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:010140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
SAO-2-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.01.2024
Reserved on: 16.01.2024
Yuvraj Arora and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Bhupinder Singh and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. This Second Appeal has arisen against the order passed by the
First Appellate Court on 16.10.2023, which had reversed the order passed
by the trial court on 11.04.2018.
2. In substance, the respondent no.1 has filed a suit for the grant
of decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent
injunction. The prayer clause of the plaint reads as under:-
"Hence it is prayed that decree for declaration to
the effect that the sale deed bearing Wasika No. 863 dated
6.9.2013 registered with Joint Sub Registrar, Mullanpur
Dakha, District Ludhiana executed by plaintiff in favour of
defendant no.1 to 3 at the instance of defendant no.4 in
respect of land measuring 1B-10B-1-3/10B (Pukhta)
comprised in Khata No. 98/102, Khasra No. 35//17/2, as per
jamabandi for the years 2010-11, situated at Dakha-1, Tehsil
and District Ludhiana is illegal, null and void and is not
binding on the rights the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside
and also its consequent mutation no. 17696 And further a
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010140
SAO-2-2024 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:010140
decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, gift
or in any other mode/manner to anybody else and further
restraining them from dispossessing and interfering in the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property
illegally, forcibly and otherwise than in due course of law, may
kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the
defendants, with costs. Any other additional or alternative
relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled, the same may also
be granted."
3. In a nutshell, the plaintiff claims that he alongwith his brother
entered into an agreement to sell, in favour of defendant no.4 on
09.08.2012 with respect to the land measuring 5 bighas 16 biswas and 8
biswani. As per the agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed
and registered on or before 13.08.2013. However, defendant no.4 did not
honour the agreement. Subsequently, on account of friendly relations, the
plaintiff executed as many as four sale deeds in favour of different persons
including sale deed number 863 dated 06.09.2013. However, he has only
been paid Rs.26,10,000/- although, as per the agreement to sell, the total
amount of the sale deed comes to Rs.2,23,12,125/-. It has been alleged that
the plaintiff did not deliver the possession of the property and despite
repeated requests, the defendants have not paid the entire sale
consideration. Subsequently, the plaintiff received summons in a suit filed
by Onkarjit Singh and his brother. He met them to tell him to settle the
dispute with defendant no.4. Thereafter, the plaintiff met defendant no.4,
however, he flatly refused to pay the amount.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010140
SAO-2-2024 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:010140
4. It was claimed that the plaintiff continues to be in possession
of the property and apart from a decree of declaration stating that the sale
deed is illegal, null and void, he also sought a decree for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing and interfering in
his peaceful possession.
5. An application under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') was filed on the ground
that the plaintiff has not paid ad valorem court fee on the amount of sale
consideration and the suit was filed by the plaintiff beyond the prescribed
time, which is 3 years from the date of execution of the sale deed. The trial
court allowed the application vide order dated 11.04.2018, which, in turn,
has been reversed by the First Appellate Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length
and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
7. Learned senior counsel representing the appellants while
relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Dahiben vs.
Arvind Bhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra) dead through its LRs and
others (2020) 7SCC 366 submits that the period of limitation for filing the
suit to challenge the sale deed came to an end on 06.09.2016 whereas the
suit was filed on 31.05.2017. He further submits that the sale deed has
resulted into transfer of title without any precondition and therefore, at the
most, the plaintiff's allegation that he has not been paid the entire sale
consideration, cannot be a ground to set aside the sale deed.
8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the parties and carefully studied the judgment
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010140
SAO-2-2024 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:010140
passed in Dahiben's case (supra). In the aforesaid case, the sale deed was
executed on 02.07.2009 whereas the suit was filed on 15.12.2014. As a
matter of fact, the court found that the case pleaded by the plaintiff was
inconceivable. Subsequently, while relying upon the judgment passed by
the Supreme Court in Vidyadhar vs. Manik Rao (1999) 3 SCC 573 the
Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was beyond the prescribed
period of limitation and therefore, the plaint has rightly been rejected. It
may be noted here that the partial rejection of the plaint is not envisaged
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In this case, the plaintiff (respondent
herein) has specifically asserted that he continues to be in possession of the
property. He has also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants from dispossessing or interfering in his peaceful possession.
Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the suit filed by the
plaintiff to seek cancellation of sale deed on account of non-payment of
part of the sale consideration is not maintainable, still his prayer for grant
of decree of permanent injunction is not barred by any provision of law.
Before rejecting the plaint, the court at the threshold, is required to be
certain that the plaint is barred by law. Before passing such order, the court
is required to study the complete plaint alongwith all the prayers which
have been made. If prima facie the Court finds that the entire claim in the
suit is barred by law only then it is permissible for the court to reject the
plaint at the threshold. As already noticed, this Court finds that prima facie
the prayer made for grant of injunction is not barred by law.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground to
interfere is made out.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010140
SAO-2-2024 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:010140
10. Hence, dismissed.
11. Needless to observe that the observations made in this order
or by the First Appellate Court shall not be construed as a final expression
on the merits of the case.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
23.01.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:010140
5 of 5
