Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, J.
Rajeev Gupta and Others - Appellants
Versus
Prashant Garg and Others - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 426 of 2017
Decided On : 21-09-2021
sale deeds - property ownership - Indian Succession Act, Indian Evidence Act, Limitation Act - The court discussed the validity of sale deeds executed in violation of an injunction order, the requirement to prove a will, the effect of a compromise decree, and the application of the doctrine of lis pendens. The court held that the sale deeds were void, the will did not need to be proved, the compromise decree was not binding on the plaintiff, and the doctrine of lis pendens applied.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought cancellation of sale deeds executed in violation of an injunction order and possession of the disputed property. The trial court held in favor of the defendants, but the first appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:
The first appellate court found that the sale deeds were void, the will did not need to be proved, the suit was not barred by limitation, and the compromise decree was not binding on the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included ownership of the property, validity of the sale deeds, sufficiency of court fees, and limitation of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deeds were void as they were executed in violation of an injunction order, the will did not need to be proved as it was admitted in earlier suits, the suit was not barred by limitation, and the compromise decree was not binding on the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Krishna Mohan Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent no. 1 and perused the lower court record.
2. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant nos. 2 to 4/appellants against the judgement and decree dated 04.03.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015 (Prashant Garg Vs. Rajeev Gupta and others) arising out of judgement and decree dated 25.02.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Original Suit No. 117 of 2003 praying for cancellation of sale deeds dated 16.06.1992 and 29.06.1992 executed in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 4/appellants by Ramesh Chand Garg (brother of plaintiff no. 1) and also for delivery of possession of property in dispute.
3. The plaintiffs instituted an Original Suit No. 117 of 2003. The plaintiffs’ case is that Dr. Babu Ram Garg was the owner of House No. 49B, Vakil Road, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, measuring 960 sq. yards. He acquired other properties also during his lifetime. He had three sons, namely, Ishwar Chand Garg, Ramesh Chand Garg and Dr. Karam Chand Garg. Dr. Babu Ram Garg executed a will dated 17.10.1951 which was duly registered and he died in the year 1958. By virtue of will, the western part of House No. 49B aforesaid was bequeathed to Ishwar Chand Garg and eastern part thereof, area 515 sq. yards went to Dr. Karam Chand Garg. The business of pharmacy left behind by late Dr. Babu Ram Garg in the name and style of “The Sewak Pharmacy” exclusively went to his third son, Ramesh Chand Garg, along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- in cash. Ramesh Chand Garg was not given any right, title or interest in the House No. 49B. In the year 1992, Dr. Karam Chand Garg, owner of eastern part of House No. 49B, on the basis of will of his father, instituted an Original Suit No. 458 of 1992 praying for a decree of permanent injunction on 15.06.1992 in the court of Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar, against Ramesh Chand Garg and legal heirs of late Ishwar Chand Garg. Initially an ex-parte injunction order was granted to the plaintiff on 15.06.1992 but Ramesh Chand Garg executed two sale deeds of the property in favour of defendant nos. 2 to 4/appellants and subsequently wife and son of late Ishwar Chand Garg and plaintiff, late Dr. Karam Chand Garg entered into a compromise and the Original Suit No. 458 of 1992 was decided vide judgement and decree dated 13.10.1992 in terms of aforesaid compromise. Despite the decree of injunction, Ramesh Chand Garg executed sale deeds dated 16.06.1992 and 29.06.1992 in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 4/appellants. The defendant nos. 2 to 4/appellants were fully aware that Ramesh Chand Garg had no right to execute the sale deeds. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of suit and his son was substituted in his place. His daughters were impleaded as defendant nos. 8 and 9 in the suit and they did not claimed any interest in the suit property. During the pendency of suit, the defendant no. 1, Smt. Meena Kumari died on 25.03.2005 leaving behind the defendant nos. 2 to 5 as her legal heirs. The legal heirs of deceased Smt. Meena Kumari are not in possession over the suit property but if their possession is found, the plaintiffs are entitled to get possession of the same. The defendant nos. 2 to 4/appellants refused to get the sale deed executed by Ramesh Chand Garg in their favour cancelled as the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs.
4. The defendant nos. 1 to 5/appellants filed their written statements stating that the house in dispute was ancestral property of original plaintiff, Dr. Karam Chand Garg, his brothers Ishwar Chand Garg, Ramesh Chand Garg and his father, Dr. Babu Ram Garg. Therefore, Dr. Babu Ram Garg had no right to execute will of the house in dispute. The defendant nos. 2 to 4/appellants are in possession as owners of the property since the dates of the sa
The main legal point established in the judgment is that sale deeds executed in violation of an injunction order are void, and the doctrine of lis pendens applies to such transactions.
(1) Period of limitation – If cause of action to sue means accrual of right for an actionable claim, it is the moment from which such right first accrues that clock of limitation would start ticking ....
Subsequent purchasers cannot assert defenses of the original vendor without seeking leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC, especially when the original sale deeds have been canceled.
The main legal point established is that incorrect registration location renders a deed voidable, not void ab initio, and only a recorded tenure holder can maintain a suit for cancellation of a sale ....
Sale deeds executed against injunction orders lack legal sanctity; thus, the cancellation of such deeds is upheld based on prior court judgments.
A sale deed is void if no consideration was paid; registration does not validate it, and its improper registration does not confer title.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that sale deeds executed in violation of injunction orders and lacking legal sanctity can be declared null and void, and the issue of limitation ca....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
