IMPORTANT POINT
A registered sale deed executed after full consideration cannot be challenged by a suit for specific performance without first seeking its cancellation.

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J. - Heard Shri. Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2. The opposite party nos.3 and 4 are proforma respondents, hence there is no need to issue notice to them.

2. This petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2023 passed by the District Judge, Ayodhya (Faizabad) in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2015, Anoop Kumar and others v. Shital Das and others, contained as Annexure no.1 to the petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a suit for specific performance was filed by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 with regard to certain land situated in village Kot Saray, Pargana Magalsi, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya. The respondent nos.3 and 4 had executed unregistered agreement to sale on 22.10.1986 in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Since the respondent no.4 was minor at the time of execution of such agreement to sale, it was recorded in such agreement that when permission is granted by the appropriate authority then actual sale deed shall be made out. Consolidation proceedings were initiated in the village and the old Gata nos. 502, 501 and 504 were changed to Gata nos.178, 181 and 187, respectively. At the time of execution of the agreement to sale, the names of respondent nos.3 and 4 were also not recorded in the revenue records, as is evident from the perusal of the said agreement to sale, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure no.2 to the petition. When the respondent no.4 became major, respondent nos.3 and 4 executed a sale deed on 30.07.2010 in favour of the petitioner after receiving full consideration, a copy of the sale deed as been filed as Annexure no.3 to the petition. After the execution of sale deed dated 30.07.2010, the name of petitioner was also recorded in the revenue records, a copy of the Khatauni has been filed as Annexure no.4 to the petition. The petitioner came into possession after the sale deed dated 30.07.2010 was executed in his favour and he was using the land according to his own will and without any hindrance, when respondent nos.1 and 2 filed a civil suit for specific performance bearing Original Suit No.341 of 2010 for agreement to sale dated 22.10.1986 without explaining delay of 24 years in filing the said suit. The respondent nos.1 and 2 also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, paper no. 6 ga 2. The respondent nos.3 and 4 filed their objections stating that respondent no.4 was minor at the time of such agreement to sale and therefore it was null and void ab initio and also that no permission was taken from the District Magistrate, Ayodhya for such sale to be effected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that agreement to sell was not in respect of Gata No.187 therefore it could not be made effective regarding Gata No.187. Similarly, one another Gata no.519 was mentioned in agreement to sell was recorded as Parti and Nala in the revenue records after consolidation proceedings and the agreement to sell could not be made effective regarding Gata No.519 also. The application under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was considered by the learned trial Court and was rejected vide order dated 31.03.2014 finding that sale deed had already been effected on 30.07.2010 for the land in dispute and prima facie case for the plaintiffs was not made out herein, therefore, there was no question of considering balance of convenience and irreparable loss and undue hardship. The respondent nos.3 and 4 filed an appeal registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No.73 of 2015, which appeal had been allowed on 23.11.2023 without looking into the records and giving a perverse finding. Such appeal has also been allowed after a delay of 8 years. In the meantime the nature of land has also been changed. As a result whereof the order of the appellate Court will have