Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Nimmi Infratech Private Limited (Previously Satya Homes Private Limited) - Appellant
Versus
Fundan and Others - Respondents
First Appeal No. 844 of 2024
Decided On : 23-01-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 144 and 206 - Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. - The trial Court rejected the plaint on grounds of valuation and jurisdiction, citing the bar under U.P. Revenue Code - The appeal challenged this rejection, asserting that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare sale-deeds null and void. (Paras 1, 6, 24)
(B) Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - The court held that the land in question was not agricultural and thus outside the purview of the U.P. Revenue Code, allowing the Civil Court to adjudicate the matter. (Paras 19, 24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a private limited company, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale against the defendants, who executed sale-deeds in violation of a temporary injunction. The trial Court rejected the plaint, citing jurisdictional issues under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Findings of Court:
The rejection of the plaint was found to be unlawful, as the land was deemed non-agricultural, thus allowing the Civil Court jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the plaint based on the U.P. Revenue Code was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the land was not agricultural, the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code did not apply, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the plaint is revived.
JUDGMENT :
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)
ANALYSIS OF BAR OF SUIT INVOKING U.P. REVENUE CODE, 2006 VIS-A-VIS REJECTION OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 C.P.C.
THE APPEAL
1. The instant appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') assails validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.8.2024 and decree dated 20.8.2024 based thereupon, whereby the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar has allowed an application 20&d filed by the defendant-respondent No. 6 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and rejected the plaint of Original Suit No. 828 of 2024 (Nimmi Infratech Pvt. Limited v. Fundan and others). The order impugned amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) C.P.C., hence this regular appeal.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The aforesaid suit was filed with the averments that Satya Homes Private Limited being a private limited company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, was subsequently nomenclatured as Nimmi Infratech Private Limited. Defendants No. 1 to 4 were alleged to be owners of the property in dispute with an averment that their names were recorded in the revenue records and that they had entered into an agreement for sale dated 2.5.2014 with the plaintiff-Company and out of the total proposed sale consideration of Rs. 15,21,37,274/-, a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was paid by the Company; the agreement was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar concerned; possession of the property was delivered to the appellant as per the agreement itself; stamp duty amounting to Rs. 76,12,100/- was paid on the entire sale consideration; a sale-deed dated 14.12.2015 was executed by the executant Mehar Chand in favour of the plaintiff-Company in respect of part of land covered by gata No. 795 and a sum of Rs. 29,23,700/- was paid in relation to the agreement for sale which was adjusted towards sale consideration and remaining amount was paid to the defendants No. 1 to 4. Further averments were made regarding another sale-deed dated 20.6.2015 executed in respect of some part of gata No. 793 and adjustment of money paid with reference to agreement for sale.
3. The cause of action giving rise to the suit was alleged on account of the fact that the defendants No. 1 to 4, instead of executing sale-deed in furtherance of the agreement for sale in respect of remaining part of the land, executed six sale-deeds in favour of other defendants and though a suit being Original Suit No. 1183 of 2023 (Satya Homes Private Limited v. Fundan and others) was previously filed in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar claiming a decree of specific performance of the agreement and, in which, a temporary injunction order dated 10.10.2023 was passed, the sale-deeds were executed in violation thereof. Terming the sale-deeds as void and adversely affecting the rights of the plaintiff for multiple reasons, decree was claimed to the effect that sale-deeds be declared as illegal, forged, fabricated and void documents and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff-Company and such endorsement be made in the records of the Sub-Registrar concerned. A further decree for injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the property based upon the void sale-deeds was also claimed with a further relief of damages to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- per month.
4. The trial Court, on 21.5.2024, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order directing the parties to maintain status quo and issued notices to the defendants. The injunction order was extended from time to time and, later on, an application 20&d was filed by defendant No. 6 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint. Pursuant to an order dated 2.7.2024 passed by this Court in Matter Under Article 227 No. 7743 of 2024 (M/s Aahaan Infrastructure v. Nimmi Infratech Private Limited and 9 others), whereby the trial Court was directed to make all endeavours to decide the application unde
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters involving non-agricultural land, despite the U.P. Revenue Code's provisions, as the rejection of the plaint was deemed unlawful.
The civil court retains jurisdiction over injunction suits concerning leased non-agricultural lands, and under applicable statutes, a plaint cannot be rejected partially but must be considered as a w....
The pendency of proceedings under one provision does not bar actions under another; purely legal questions can be heard despite available alternative remedies.
The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
Where khatedari rights are yet to be determined/declared, a party has to first approach Revenue Courts.
Civil courts retain jurisdiction over non-agricultural properties in disputes involving agricultural claims, and cannot dismiss the entire plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 without evaluating all claims o....
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
