Rajasthan High Court
Krishna Kumar Son Of Goverdhan Lal vs Vandana Devi Daughter Of Narayan ... on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 439/2022
Krishna Kumar Son Of Goverdhan Lal
----Appellant
Versus
Vandana Devi Daughter Of Narayan Prasad & Ors.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg
Mr. Anil Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Agarwal for respondent No.5
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
04/08/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this first appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 28.5.2022 passed by Additional
District Judge, Laxmangarh in suit No.41/2019 whereby prayer for
specific performance on the basis of agreement to sale deed dated
16.6.2001 has been declined, although, the trial Court has held
entitled the plaintiff to get back his amount of Rs.3 lacs from
respondent-defendants No.1 to 4 along with compound interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit and has upheld
the subsequent sale deed dated 17.8.2001 of respondent-
defendant No.5.
2. Counsel for appellant-plaintiff submits that respondents-
defendants No.1 to 4 entered into agreement dated 16.6.2001 to
sale the suit property (Haveli, at town Laxmangarh) against total
sale consideration of Rs.8 lacs out of which 3 lacs were paid.
However, later on respondents-defendants No.1 to 4 has sold and
transferred the possession of Haveli to respondent-defendant No.1
(2 of 3) [CFA-439/2022]
to 5 through registered sale deed dated 17.8.2001, therefore,
plaintiff has instituted a civil suit for specific performance of the
agreement dated 16.6.2001 and consequential to declare the sale
deed of respondent No.5 dated 17.8.2001 as null and void.
3. Respondent No.5 who is purchaser of the suit property
through the registered sale deed dated 17.8.2001 appeared as
Caveator and submits that the trial Court has rightly denied to
grant the decree for specific performance since respondent No.5 is
a bonafide purchaser for value without notice.
4. Heard.
5. Admit.
6. Issue notice to respondents except respondent No.5 who has
appeared.
7. Record of the trial Court be summoned.
8. Heard on the stay application.
9. Since both parties have been heard on stay application, it is
an admitted fact that on the date of institution of suit and at
present, the Haveli in question is in use, occupation and
possession of respondent No.5 who has purchased the same
through registered sale deed dated 17.8.2001. However, since the
agreement of plaintiff dated 16.6.2001 has been found proved,
this Court deems it just and proper to grant an interim relief that
during course of first appeal, respondent No.5 would not further
transfer the suit property and would not create any third party
interest.
10. Appellant is not interested in taking back his money and
wants to pursue his claim for specific performance, therefore, the
operation of the impugned decree to refund the amount of Rs.3
(3 of 3) [CFA-439/2022]
lacs to plaintiff along with compound interest would remain
stayed.
11. This stay order will not come in way of the respondent No.5
to use property in question and if required to carry out any
necessary repair/maintenance/ addition and alteration/
construction in the suit property, during pendency of this first
appeal but such work shall not create any equity in favour of
respondent No.5 and shall remain subject to decision of this first
appeal and same would also not adversely affect the right of
appellant as well in case, he succeeds in the present appeal.
12. With aforesaid observations, stay application stands disposed
of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /15
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
