Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Swati Jain W/O Shri Rakesh ... vs Shri Ranjeet Singh S/O Shri Hari ... on 28 September, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 576/2022
Smt. Swati Jain W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain
----Appellant
Versus
Shri Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh Ji,
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bipin Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
28/09/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this appeal, feeling
aggrieved by dismissal of her civil suit for specific performance
and permanent injunction vide judgment dated 30.8.2022 passed
by Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur in
Civil Suit No.182/2014.
2. Respondent No.2, who is purchaser of lands in question
through registered sale deed dated 28.5.2014, has appeared as
Caveator.
3. Heard counsel for both parties.
4. According to facts on record, it appears that appellant-
plaintiff came out with a case that respondent No.1-defendant
No.1 agreed to sale his half share in lands in question to plaintiff
against total sale consideration of Rs.66,87,500/- and received
Rs.5 lac vide cheque. Plaintiff stated that defendant No.1 executed
the sale deed also but did not appear to get registered the sale
deed before Sub-Registrar, rather thereafter executed and
(2 of 4) [CFA-576/2022]
registered another sale deed dated 28.5.2014 in favour of
respondent No.2 against sale consideration of Rs.66,50,000/-,
Thereafter, has instituted the present civil suit for specific
performance and cancellation of subsequent sale deed and
permanent injunction on 10.6.2014. Plaintiff claimed to obtain
possession of lands in question from defendant No.1.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-defendant
No.2 has pointed out that defendant No.2 has purchased half
share of defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated
28.5.2014 and he has paid the entire sale consideration and has
also received the possession and at present defendant No.2 is in
actual and cultivatory possession of lands in question. He has
pointed out that learned trial Court has also recorded findings
affirming the possession of defendant No.2 over lands in question.
6. As per record, respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has taken a
defense to plaintiff's suit that though he has agreed to sale his
land to plaintiff but plaintiff make payment of only Rs.5 lac and
wanted to pay the remaining sale consideration in installments by
way of post dated cheques, to which defendant No.1 was not
agreeable and therefore, he declined to register the sale deed in
favour of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has contended in his written
statement that Rs. 5 lac paid by plaintiff, were returned to him
through RTGS on 24.5.2014 and thereafter only he has sold his
land to defendant No.2 through registered sale deed dated
28.5.2014. Defendant No.1 admits to receive entire sale
consideration from defendant No.2 and delivery of possession of
lands in question to defendant No.2 only.
(3 of 4) [CFA-576/2022]
7. Learned trial Court, in the impugned judgment, has decided
issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff, in view of admitted facts by
defendant No.1 but has decided other issues against plaintiff and
dismissed his suit. Issue No.3 was specifically framed as to
whether plaintiff has the possession of lands in question? After
discussion of evidence of both parties, the trial Court has clearly
held that plaintiff remained fail to prove his possession but
defendant No.2 obtained the possession from defendant No.1 and
is in cultivatory possession of lands in question. The trial Court has
placed reliance upon Girdawari (Ex.A-2/1) and Patwari Report
(Ex.A-2/3) as also the registered sale deed of defendant No.2. The
claim of plaintiff to have possession on the basis of unregistered
document of sale deed and his oral evidence, has been
disbelieved.
8. Mr. Bipin Gupta, learned counsel for appellant has
vehemently argued that the trial Court, while deciding the
application for temporary injunction filed by plaintiff, prima facie
held that plaintiff is in possession of lands in question but has
committed perversity in recording findings of possession against
plaintiff, while deciding issue No.3.
9. Since first appeal required to be heard on facts and law.
10. Appeal is admitted.
11. Having considered entire facts and circumstances of case and
taking into account the undisputed fact that plaintiff paid only Rs.5
lac to defendant No.1, against total sale consideration of
Rs.66,87,500/- and which too has been refunded by defendant
No.1 to plaintiff in his bank account and thereafter, defendant
No.2 has purchased lands in question from defendant No.1
(4 of 4) [CFA-576/2022]
through registered sale deed and has paid entire sale
consideration as also has proved his possession over lands in
question, this Court is not inclined to grant interim order of status
quo as prayed by appellant-plaintiff but deems it just and proper
to restrain respondent No.2 not to sale lands in question in favour
of any third party.
12. Notices be issued to respondent No.1.
13. Record of the trial Court be summoned.
14. The stay application shall be decided finally after receiving
the record.
15. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 may file reply to the stay
application, if so desires.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN/21
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
