SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ABDUL MOIN, J.
Manas India Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Meena and Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 40 of 2023
Decided On : 15-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Lalta Prasad Misra, Deepanshu Dass.
For the Respondent: Ravindra Kumar Yadav.

A suit solely seeking relief of permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement for sale without seeking any relief for specific performance is not maintainable.

Headnote:

unregistered agreement for sale - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Registration Act, 1908 - The court discussed the validity of an unregistered agreement for sale and its admissibility for seeking relief of permanent injunction. The court referred to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi, MANU/SC/1241/2022, which held that a suit solely seeking relief of permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement for sale without seeking any relief for specific performance is not maintainable. The court concluded that the suit seeking only a relief for permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement for sale was not maintainable, and there was no illegality in rejecting the application for temporary injunction.

Fact of the Case:

An unregistered agreement for sale was executed, and the appellant claimed possession of the plots. The respondents interfered, leading to a suit for permanent injunction. The trial court initially granted an order of status quo, rejected applications under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC, and ultimately rejected the temporary injunction application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit seeking only a relief for permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement for sale was not maintainable, and there was no illegality in rejecting the application for temporary injunction.

Issues: The issue of whether a suit solely seeking relief of permanent injunction could be filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement for sale without seeking any relief for specific performance was considered by the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi, MANU/SC/1241/2022, established that a suit solely seeking relief of permanent injunction based on an unregistered agreement for sale without seeking any relief for specific performance is not maintainable.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court stated that the dismissal would not preclude the trial court from deciding the application for amendment filed by the appellant on its own merits in accordance with the law after hearing all the parties concerned provided there is no legal impediment.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL MOIN, J.

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate assisted by Sri Deepanshu Dass, learned counsels appearing for the appellant and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sandeep Srivastava and Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsels appearing for the respondents no. 2 to 4.

2. Instant First Appeal From Order has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:

    “(a) Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 2148 of 2021, Manas India Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Meena and Others and allow the present appeal in the interest of justice.”

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case set forth by the appellant is that an unregistered agreement for sale was executed on 01.07.2018, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the appeal with one Sri Jagjeewan, the husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondents no. 2 to 4. The agreement for sale pertained to Khasra No. 388 Sa and part of Khasra No. 202. The agreement for sale also passed on the possession of the said plots to the appellant as was indicated in paragraph 4 of the said agreement. Various payments both in cash and through cheques towards the said agreement for sale are claimed to have been made initially to Sri Jagjeewan and after his death to the respondent no. 1 the details of which have been given in paragraphs 6 & 9 of the affidavit in support of application for interim relief. It is also contended that there was a second plot adjacent to the aforesaid plots which was recorded in the name of the father of Sri Jagjeewan from whom the said plot was purchased through a registered sale deed. It is contended that as the respondents along with certain other persons started interfering in the peaceful possession of the aforesaid plots it compelled the appellant to file a suit for permanent injunction in the year 2021 which was registered as Regular Suit No. 214 of 2021, Manas India Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Smt. Meena and Others before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow. A temporary injunction application was also filed by the appellant and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 10.12.2021, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the appeal passed an order of status quo. It is contended that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) was filed by the respondents contending that as the suit had only been filed seeking relief for permanent injunction and without seeking the relief of specific performance as such, the said suit was liable to be dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 02.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the appeal rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiff/appellant herein, is a master of his suit.

4. It is contended that the commission report had also been called for which was submitted on 18.01.2022, a copy of which is annexure 13 to the appeal a perusal of which would indicate that the report specifically indicates the possession of the appellant over the plots in dispute.

5. It is also contended that an application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC by the respondents was also rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2022. Subsequent thereto, the temporary injunction application of the appellant has been finally decided and by means of impugned order dated 22.12.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the appeal, the said application has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant while seeking to challenge the order impugned dated 22.12.2022 argues that a perusal of the order impugned dated 22.12.2022 would indicate that the application has been rejected primarily on the grounds that (a) there is dispute pertaining to the unregistered agreement for sale having been executed with respect to the part of Khasra No. 2

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top