Uttarakhand High Court
FA/135/2025 on 29 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or directions and
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No Registrar's order with
Signatures
FA No.135 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The appellant-defendant has put to challenge the
judgment and decree dated 07.05.2025 passed by
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh, District
Dehradun in Original Suit No.108 of 2019, Sri Chiranjilal
vs. Sri Arjun Singh, whereby the suit for cancellation of
sale deed filed by the respondent-plaintiff, Sri Chiranjilal,
was partly decreed, and the sale deed in-question was
declared illegal, null and void.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-
defendant that suit has been filed by respondent-plaintiff
for cancellation of the sale deed in-question only on the
ground that the entire sale consideration has not been
paid, rather the consideration which has been paid by
cheques amounting to Rs.16 lakhs, those cheques were
bounced. The learned trial court has come to this
conclusion in the impugned judgment that since the sale
consideration has not been paid to the respondent-
plaintiff, therefore, the sale deed is null and void and
declared as such.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant heavily
relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)
Dead through legal representatives and others;
reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 to submit that even in
such a situation where the sale consideration has not
been paid completely and only part payment has been
made, in that situation, sale has been completed, there
arises no question of cancellation of the sale deed. He
further submits that it was the case of the appellant-
defendant before the trial court in the written statement
that the amount which has been paid to the respondent-
defendant was the actual sale consideration.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the
attention of this Court to paragraph nos.29.8 & 29.9 of
the aforesaid judgment.
7. From perusal of the impugned judgment also, it is
reflected that the said law has been cited by the
appellant-defendant before the learned trial court, but
the judgment has not been considered by learned trial
court, rather only saying that the facts of the case are
not applicable to the present set of facts. Therefore, the
said case has not been relied upon the learned trial
court.
8. I have gone through para 88 of the judgment
impugned before this Court as well as the case law cited
by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, I find
force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellant-defendant true and correct. This is a case
where the part of the sale consideration has been paid
and only cheques amounting to Rs.16 lakhs were
bounced. Therefore, the facts appear to be similar and
the law enunciated by the Apex Court in such situation
would be applicable.
9. Admit.
10. Sent for TCR.
11. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable within
four weeks.
12. Steps to be taken within a week.
13. List on 17.10.2025.
14. Till the next date of listing, execution of the
judgment and decree dated 07.05.2025 passed by
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh, District
Dehradun in Original Suit No.108 of 2019, Sri Chiranjilal
vs. Sri Arjun Singh, shall remain stayed.
15. Stay application (IA No.1/2025) stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.07.2025
AK
