The dishonor of a cheque linked to a sale deed renders the deed ineffective due to non-fulfillment of contractual conditions, thus affirming the owner’s continued possession and right to a prohibitory injunction.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the defendant/Appellant, and Mr. Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff/Respondent at great at length.

2. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant, Vinod Kumar Jalan (hereinafter “the defendant”), challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur, in Original Suit No. 570 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the trial court declared the sale deed dated 16.06.2003 to be ineffective and granted a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the disputed property.

3. During the course of final hearing of the present appeal, learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has filed one application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking some additional documents to be brought on record, which according to the appellant were necessary for the adjudication of the present controversy, upon which the matter was adjourned by giving opportunity to plaintiff/respondent to file any affidavit, if required. On which learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that he had already filed reply to one of the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC and same may be read as reply to the said application.

4. During argument, this Court was further informed that another application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC had also been filed by the defendant/appellant, also bringing on record certain documents for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the present matter, to which, a detailed counter affidavit had already been filed by the plaintiff/respondent, but record reflects that no rejoinder to the said counter was filed even despite giving various opportunities. This Court finds that another application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC has also been filed by the plaintiff/respondent for bringing on record the gift deed dated 01.06.2011, which was executed during the pendency of the present appeal by the sole defendant in favour of his son.

5. This Court would deal the merits of the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the defendant/appellant at the end of this judgment.

FACTS OF THE CASE

6. The Plaintiff, Kailash Jaiswal, admittedly, was the owner and in possession of Plot No. 125 area 1084.39 sq. meters land situated at Mauja Araji Chhavani, Tappa-Qasba Pargana Haveli, Tehsil and District Gorakhpur, instituted Original Suit No. 570 of 2004 for a declaration that the sale deed executed by him in favour of the Defendant on 16.06.2003 for a property situated in Gorakhpur be declared as null, void, and ineffective, and for a permanent injunction.

7. The Plaintiff’s case was that the property was agreed to be sold for Rs. 46,00,000/-. Out of this, Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in cash, and for the balance of Rs. 45,00,000/-, a post-dated cheque (No. SPI MC BJ A.B. 797760 dated 30.09.2003, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gorakhpur) was issued by the Defendant. A crucial condition was incorporated in the sale deed that if the said cheque was dishonoured for any reason, the sale deed w