Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. C. Sharma, J.
Shubh Laxmi Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
v. Suresh @ Gopal and others
First Appeal No. 81 of 1999 (Indore): against judgment and decree dated 13.10.1998 passed by IV Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 8A of 1996; Decided on 15.2.2018
-- in absence of obligatory material pleadings, trial Court justified in dismissing suit, as basic requirement of pleadings provided under section 16(c) of the Act read with Form 17 Appendix A of the Code, was not fulfilled. (1989)4 SCC 313, (2006)2 SCC 496, (2010)10 SCC 512 and (2012)2 SCC 300 followed. [Paras 17 & 25
(2) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S.16(c) -- agreement to sell dated 12.11.1993 -- respondent No. 2 disputed agreement in March, 1994 -- suit for specific performance filed in March, 1996 -- appellant-plaintiff never addressed any notice to respondents to perform agreement -- conduct of plaintiff establishes that he was never ready and willing to get agreement executed. AIR 2011 SC 2057 and AIR 1997 SC 1751 followed. 2004(2) MPLJ 169 relied on. [Para 26
(3) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S.20 -- property agreed to be sold for Rs. 8.5 lacs in 1986-1988 -- value of property mentioned as Rs. 1.05 lacs in agreement dated 12.11.1993, which is subject-matter of present civil suit -- raises serious doubt as sale consideration highly inadequate -- trial Court justified in dismissing suit. 1985 MPWN 327 and AIR 2010 Raj. 128 relied on. [Para 30
(4) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S.20 -- relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief -- cannot be granted keeping in view the conduct of the plaintiff, after a lapse of 24 years. 2017(3) MPLJ 540 (SC), (2001)6 SCC 600 and (2008)7 SCC 310 followed. 2006(3) MPLJ 205 relied on. [Paras 33 & 38
(5) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S.20 -- suit for specific performance of agreement to sell -- there appears to be some manipulation in respect of vouchers and agreement -- lot of discrepancies in record of society -- appellant not able to show reasonable cause as to why entire payment made in cash -- suit rightly dismissed.
Held : In the agreement dated 12.11.1993, spaces have been left blank, its execution is dated 12.11.1993 though notarisation is dated 15.11.1993. Different typewriters have been used in respect of Vouchers Ex. P-3 to P-6 and there appears to be some manipulation in respect of vouchers and in respect of the agreement also. Lot of discrepancies have been found in the record of the society and the appellant has not been able to show a reasonable cause as to why the entire payment has been made in cash. The suit land is undisputedly in possession of respondent No. 1 and now it is in possession of respondent No. 7 and 8 after execution of sale deeds by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondents No. 7 and 8 in the year 2005. The trial Court, based upon the evidence on record, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any decree of specific performance of contract. Not only this, this Court has already decided three first appeals, i.e., F. A. No. 685/2007, F. A. No. 686/2007 and F. A. No. 687/2007 in which respondent No. 2 Narendra Singh Punia by using the power of attorney has adopted the same modus operandi by entering into agreement to sell in favour of respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 who are his children and wife. The judgment delivered by this Court was subjected to judicial scrutiny and SLPs have also been dismissed and, therefore, after careful consideration of the entire record is of the opinion that the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the suit and the present appeal being devoid of any merit and substance also deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly hereby dismissed.
¼1½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 16¼x½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && ifjf'k"V d] iz:i 47 && rS;kjh vkSj jtkeanh dk vfHkokd~ ugha && vfHkopuksa ds vHkko esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ fu"d"kZ Hkh vfHkfyf[kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && ck/;dj rkfRod vfHkopuksa ds vHkko esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk okn [kkfjt fd;k tkuk U;k;kuqer D;ksafd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 16¼x½ lgifBr lafgrk ds ifjf'k"V d] iz:i 17 ds v/khu micaf/kr vfHkopuksa dh vk/kkjHkwr vis{kk iwjh ugha gqbZA ¼1989½4 ,l lh lh 313] ¼2006½2 ,l lh lh 496] ¼2010½10 ,l lh lh 512 rFkk ¼2012½2 ,l lh lh 300 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 25 ¼2½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 16¼x½ && foØ; djkj fnukad 12-11-1993 dk && izR;FkhZ Ø-2 us ekpZ] 1994 esa djkj fookfnr fd;k && fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, okn ekpZ] 1996 esa Qkby && vihykFkhZ oknh us djkj ds ikyu ds fy, izR;FkhZx.k dks dHkh dksbZ lwpuk izsf"kr ugha dh && oknh ds vkpj.k ls LFkkfir fd og djkj fu"ikfnr djkus ds fy, dHkh Hkh rS;kj vkSj jtkean ugha FkkA , vkb vkj 2011 ,l lh 2057 rFkk , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 1751 vuqlfjrA 2004¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 169 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 26 ¼3½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 20 && 1986&1988 esa laifÙk #- 8-5 yk[k ds fy, foØ; djus dk djkj && djkj fnukad 12-11-1993 esa] tks izLrqr flfoy okn dh fo"k;oLrq gS] laifÙk dk ewY; #- 1-05 yk[k mfYyf[kr && xaHkhj lansg mRiUu gksrk gS D;ksafd foØ; izfrdj vR;ar vi;kZIr && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk okn [kkfjt fd;k tkuk U;k;kuqerA 1985 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 327 rFkk , vkb vkj 2010 jkt- 128 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 30 ¼4½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 20 && fofufnZ"V ikyu dk vuqrks"k oSosfdd vkSj lkE;kiw.kZ vuqrks"k gS && oknh dk vkpj.k ns[krs gq,] 24 o"kZ O;ixr gksus ds i'pkr~ iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 2017¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 540 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼2001½6 ,l lh lh 600 rFkk ¼2008½7 ,l lh lh 310 vuqlfjrA 2006¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 205 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 33 ,oa 38 ¼5½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 20 && foØ; djkj ds fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, okn && okmpjksa vkSj djkj ds laca/k esa dqN Nylk/ku izrhr gksrk gS && lhfer ds vfHkys[k esa vusd QdZ && vihykFkhZ bl ckjs esa ;qfä;qä dkj.k ugha n'kkZ ldk fd lEiw.kZ lank; uxn esa D;ksa fd;k x;k && okn Bhd gh [kkfjtA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % djkj fnukad 12-11-1993 esa LFkku fjä NksM+s x, gSa] mldk fu"iknu fnukad 12-11-1993 dk gS tcfd uksVjh dk fnukad 15-11-1993 gSA okmpj izn'kZ ih&3 ls ih&6 esa fHkUu&fHkUu VkbijkbVj mi;ksx fd, x, gSa rFkk okmpjksa ds laca/k esa vkSj djkj ds laca/k esa Hkh dqN Nylkèku izrhr gksrk gSA lfefr ds vfHkys[k esa vusd QdZ ik, x, gSa rFkk vihykFkhZ bl ckjs esa ;qfä;qä dkj.k ugha n'kkZ ldk fd laiw.kZ lank; uxn esa D;ksa fd;k x;k gSA okn&Hkwfe fufoZokfnr :i ls izR;FkhZ Ø-1 ds dCts esa gS rFkk izR;FkhZ Ø-1 }kjk o"kZ 2005 esa izR;FkhZ Ø-7 ,oa 8 ds i{k esa foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr dj fn, tkus ds i'pkr~ vc izR;FkhZ Ø- 7 ,oa 8 ds dCts esa gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us] vfHkys[kxr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij] ;g fu"d"kZ Bhd gh fudkyk gS fd oknh lafonk ds fofufnZ"V ikyu dh fMØh dk gdnkj ugha gSA ;gh ugha] bl U;k;ky; us igys gh rhu izFke vihysa] vFkkZr~ izFke vihy Ø- 685@2007] izFke vihy Ø- 686@2007 rFkk izFke vihy Ø- 687@2007 fofuf'pr dh gSa ftuesa izR;FkhZ Ø- 2 ujsanz flag iwfu;k us eq[rkjukek dk mi;ksx dj izR;FkhZ Ø- 3] 4 ,oa 5 ds i{k esa] tks mldh larku vkSj iRuh gSa] foØ; djkj fu"ikfnr dj ;gh dk;Z iz.kkyh viukbZ gSA bl U;k;ky; }kjk fn, x, fu.kZ;ksa dh U;kf;d laoh{kk dh tk pqdh gS vkSj fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk,¡ [kkfjt dh tk pqdh gSa] vr% laiw.kZ vfHkys[k ij lko/kkuhiwoZd fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ gekjh jk; gS fd fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k us okn Bhd gh [kkfjt fd;k gS rFkk izLrqr vihy Hkh xq.kjfgr vkSj rRoghu gksus ls [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj rn~uqlkj ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA
1. The present first appeal before this Court is arising out of judgment and decree dated 13.10.1998 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 8A/1996.
2. The plaintiff before the trial Court, a Cooperative Society, has filed the suit for specific performance of the contract, declaration and permanent injunction and the same has been dismissed by the trial Court.
3. Facts of the case reveal that the suit property bearing Survey No. 22/2, area 4.97 acres, is situated at Patwari Halka No. 10, Village Bijalpur, Tahsil Indore. Earlier the suit property was part of Survey No. 22 under the ownership of one Fakir Chand Khati and Fakir Chand Khati expired on 15.3.1985 and his wife Ramkunwarbai expired on 2.12.1993. After the death of Fakir Chand Khati, Survey No. 22 came into the share of one Ramnarayan, admeasuring 4.97 acres, Survey No. 22/1 came into the share of Ramkunwarbai and Survey No. 22/2 came into the share of Suresh, area 4.97 acres. The aforesaid partition took place on account of an order passed by the Revenue Court dated 19.2.1987 in Case No. 4A-27/85-86. The plaintiff Society, which is a Registered Society under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, entered into an agreement on 12.11.1993 with defendant No.1 Suresh through his Power of Attorney Narendra Singh Punia, an agreement to sell was executed for selling the land for 1.05 lacs. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was received, as stated in the plaint by the defendant No. 2 who was the power of attorney holder and an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid on 12.12.1993, again Rs. 20,000/- on 12.1.1994 and again Rs. 20,000/- on 12.2.1994 and the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid on 25.2.1994. It was also stated that in the agreement to sell defendant No. 5 – Ramandeep Singh, who is son of defendant No. 2 – Narendra Singh Punia, the power of attorney holder has also put his signatures. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 1 has placed defendant No. 2 in possession of the suit property and the defendant No. 2 has placed the plaintiff Society in possession. On account of the agreement to sell dated 12.11.1993 possession was delivered as stated by the plaintiff on 12.12.1993. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that inspite of the fact that the entire consideration has been paid the sale deed is not being executed and on 29.3.1994 the defendant No. 2 wrote a letter to the plaintiff society, of which a reply was given by the society on 19.4.1994 and thereafter defendant No. 2 filed a suit against the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 6 before the District Judge i.e., Civil Suit No. 23/1994 for declaration of title and for declaring the agreement of sell as null and void. A prayer was also made for grant of injunction. However, the suit was dismissed in default on 30.9.1995. It has been further stated in the plaint that defendant No.1 on 29.4.1994 published a notice in Dainik Agniban that the power of attorney issued by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No. 2 Narendra Singh Punia has been cancelled and the plaintiff also got a notice published in Dainik Agniban on 4.5.1994 that the agreement of sell was executed in favour of the plaintiff Society and the plaintiff Society is in possession of the suit property. On 12.6.1995 public notice was published in Dainik Bhaskar again in respect of the suit property and the defendant No. 2 Narendra Singh Punia who got certain sale deeds executed in favour of his wife and his children. The documents on record reveals that as the sale deed was not being executed, the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the original land owner Suresh and has also impleaded the power of attorney as defendant No. 2.
4. The civil suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.
5. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that an agreement to sell dated 15.11.1986 was ex
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
