Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.:- CM No.2283-C of 2014

Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Main Case

The subsequent purchaser-appellant is in the Regular Second Appeal against the judgments passed by both the Courts below.

2. The question of law which needs consideration is that whether a registered sale deed executed, can be set aside on the ground that the sale consideration, which was paid through bank transaction has now been blocked by the Central Bureau of Investigation after a period of 9 months when the amount was in the account of Vendors?

3. The admitted facts are that the plaintiffs sold the land measuring 37 kanals and 15 marlas in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003 for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,50,000/-. The entire amount of the sale consideration was received through cheque drawn on the bank which was deposited by the Vendors in their account and the amount was credited. On 22.10.2013, Central Bureau of Investigation stopped the bank of the Vendors from disbursing the aforesaid amount deposited by the Vendors.

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit on 02.04.2005 pleading that in fact the amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was ill gotten money of Miss Mayawati and defendant No.2 is her brother, whereas defendant No.1 is wife of defendant No.2 and since it was a corruption money, therefore, the payment has been stopped by the Central Bureau of Investigation and hence, there was a fraud and, therefore, the sale deed is required to be set aside.

5. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the entire amount of sale consideration has been transferred in favour of the plaintiffs in January, 2003 itself. It was further submitted that the defendants are ready to deposit Rs.15,50,000/- in the Court. In case, the Court finds that the plaintiffs are not able to utilize the amount, the Court can pay from the amount to be deposited in the Court.

6. Both the Courts below have chosen to decree the suit by recording a finding that since the amount paid was ill gotten money and the vendors were not able to utilize the amount because Central Bureau of Investigation has stopped the disbursement, hence, the sale deeds are required to be set aside.

7. It may be noted that on 22.07.2006, the plaintiffs had withdrawn the suit while making a statement that they have compromised with the defendants. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have sold the property in favour of the appellant-company on 30.08.2006 through a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs.1,65,15,625/-. After the sale deed, the plaintiffs filed an application for restoration, which was dismissed but appeal was allowed. That is how, thereafter, the suit proceeded and decreed on 15.11.2011. The appellant filed an application with leave to defend which was dismissed, however, later on the order was reversed by this Court and the appellant was permitted to file the appeal. However, the first appeal was also dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the photocopy of the sale deed, admittedly, executed by plaintiffs-respondents, correctness of the aforesaid sale deed is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. On careful reading of the copy of the sale deed, it is apparent that on receipt of cheque of Rs.8,50,000/-, it has been recorded that the vendees have become owners in possession of the property and now the vendors or their successors-in-interest have been left with no right, title or interest in the property.

9. From the reading of the sale deed, it is apparent that the sale deed does not incorporate any condition that if the cheque is dishonoured or the payment is stopped by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the sale deed would be treated as cancelled.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the sale deed cannot be cancelled or set aside in such circumstances. He submitted that even if it is assumed that for the sake of arguments, the cheque was not e