Point of Law: High Court can set aside or ignore findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.

ORDER :

Caveat Petition No. 203 of 2022

Discharged. The Caveat Petition stands disposed of.

CMPMO No. 210 of 2022

1. An application was moved by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Appellate Court with a prayer to frame additional issues and to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court for calling findings on the additional issues after taking evidence of the parties and also to direct the learned Trial Court for recording proper findings on issues No. 3 and 6. This application was dismissed on 4.4.2022. Dissatisfied, the petitioner has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Parties to the present petition are referred to hereinafter according to their status before the learned Trial Court.

2. Facts:

Facts required to be noticed for the adjudication of the present petition are that:

2(i) Respondent No. 1 instituted a Civil Suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 18.12.2001 executed by respondent No. 2 (original defendant No. 1) in favour of present petitioner (defendant No.2) registered at Sr. No. 517 on 18.12.2001 with Sub Registrar Shimla (Urban), Shimla, was null, void, illegal, forged, sham, fraudulent and inoperative qua the plaintiff. Further declaration was prayed to the effect that mortgage, if any, created by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 on the basis of the said sale deed was also void ab initio, forged, fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff. A permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was also prayed for.

2(ii) On 15.03.2010, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether mortgage, if any, created by defendant No. 2, qua the suit property or any part thereof in favour of defendant No. 3 is void-ab-initio, forged and fraudulent and inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time as alleged? OPP

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD

Parties led evidence in support of their respective assertions and pleadings. After appreciating the pleadings, evidence and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, learned Trial Court decreed the suit on 24.12.2019.

The sale deed dated 18.12.2001 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was declared null, void, illegal, sham, fraudulent and executed due to misrepresentation. The sale deed was held to be inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff. The mortgage, if any, created by defendant No. 2 qua the suit property in favour of defendant No. 3 was also held to be void ab initio and not binding upon the plaintiff. Since defendant No. 2 was held to have no legal right over the suit property, therefore, he was restrained from interfering in the suit property. Defendant No. 3, through its agents or representatives was also permanently restrained from taking any coercive action, taking possession or alienation, causing any obstruction, damaging or changing the nature of the suit property or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever arising on the basis of the aforesaid transaction held to be sham.

2(iii). Defendant No. 2 assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 18.1.2020. Defendant No. 2 in his appeal, inter alia, contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was unsustainable as the learned Trial Court had failed to stru