Uttarakhand High Court
Ranjit Kumar Singh vs Rekha Agarwal And Others on 24 February, 2025
2025:UHC:1306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.47 of 2025
Ranjit Kumar Singh ....Appellant
Versus
Rekha Agarwal and others .... Respondents
Present:
Mr. Abhishek Verma, counsel for the appellant.
Dated: 24.02.2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Court
of Civil Judge, (S.D.), District Haridwar in O.S. No.320 of
2024, 'Ranjit Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Rekha Agrawal and
others,' whereby the Court below dismissed the
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 for Temporary
Injunction on merits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant
has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w
Section 151 of CPC praying that pending adjudication of
this suit, an ad interim temporary injunction should be
issued against the defendants restraining them from
interfering in the peaceful possession over the suit
property.
3. As per the case pleaded by the appellant, the
appellant has purchased a portion of Plot No.D-2 from
one Smt. Ruby Singh through a registered sale deed
dated 23.11.2022 by paying consideration of
Rs.18,82,000/-. After purchasing the plot, he had
constructed a house and was residing in it peacefully.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it has come
out that the Plot D-2 originally belongs to predecessor-in-
interest Sri Sangeet Kumar Agrawal. The said plot was
wrongly and without any right or authority sold by
Nagarjuna Odedra to Keshav Dutt & Dinesh Chandra
vide sale deed dated 27.01.2004. Keshav Dutt & Dinesh
Chandra sold it to Amit Kumar Sharma & Smt. Mahedra
Kaur vide sale deed dated 19.05.2006. It was again sold
by Amit Kumar Sharma & Smt. Mahendra Kaur to
Naveen Kumar vide sale deed dated 07.07.2007, who
executed a sale deed of the same on 12.10.2011 in favour
of Smt. Vimla Devi. Smt. Vimla Devi sold it to Kuldeep
Chaudhary on 25.06.2013 and Kuldeep Chaudhary
executed a sale deed dated 27.05.2015 in favour of the
predecessor of the plaintiff Smt. Ruby Singh.
5. The owner of the property Sri Sangeet Kumar
Agrawal had filed a civil suit no. 419 of 2007 against 18
defendants seeking cancellation of 16 sale deeds wrongly
executed by them. The said suit was decreed on
31.05.2016 and all the 16 sale deeds were declared null
& void by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar. The
said decree has attained finality and execution
proceedings for the same are pending in the Court. In the
said civil suit Nagarjun Odedra, Raj Kumar, Keshav Dutt
& Dinesh Chandra were defendants. The Court below
held that since the sale executed by Nagarjun Odedra,
Raj Kumar, Keshav Dutt & Dinesh Chandra were void,
therefore, subsequent sale deeds by subsequent vendees
are also void ab initio as they have executed sale deed
without any right during the pendency of the said suit.
The learned court below after considering all the material
facts came to the conclusion that since the title over and
interests in the suit property of the predecessors of the
plaintiff have been invalidated by the Court's order dated
31.05.2016, therefore, there is no prima facie case in his
favour at the interim stage of the suit and, as a
consequence, the application 7C filed under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2 was dismissed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the
appellant and perusal of the impugned order, this Court
is of the view that there is no infirmity in the order
impugned in the present appeal. It is settled preposition
of law that vender cannot transfer a better title then what
they possess. This is "nemo dat quod non habet" means
"no one can give what they do not have". As discussed
above, thus, the sale deeds executed in favour of the
earlier vender have been declared to be void ab initio and
the judgment has attained finality.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the order
passed by the learned court below is correct and justified
in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore
does not call for any interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is
dismissed in limine.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
24.02.2025
BS
