Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Lok Pal Singh, J.
Maharaja Manujendra Shah
and Ors. – Revisionists
versus
Shri Surendra Singh and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Revision No.136 of 2017 with Civil Revision No.164 of 2017 with Civil Revision No.167 of 2017
Decided on 8.10.2020
For the Revisionists:Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. B.C. Pande, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gopal K. Verma, counsel
IMPORTANT POINT
Suit for cancellation of sale deed will not lie where sale deed has been executed by defendant with authority of law.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Suit for cancellation of sale deed – Plaintiffs though have instituted suit for seeking decree of declaration for cancellation of sale deed dated as well as a decree of permanent injunction against defendants who are true owner of property, it is not the case of plaintiffs that suit property belongs to State Government and sale deed has been executed by defendant without any authority of law – Relief sought in plaint has no nexus with agreement to sell/memorandum of understanding – Plaintiffs who have not instituted suit based on agreement to sell/memorandum are not entitled for relief claimed in suit – Trial court has committed illegality in dismissing applications filed by defendants – Trial court has committed illegality in dismissing applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC – Order passed by trial court is unsustainable in eyes of law – Same is set aside. (Paras 18, 20, 21)
Result: Civil Revision Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT
Lok Pal Singh, J.—Since the controversies involved in aforementioned civil revisions are same, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order.
2. All the three civil revisions under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) are directed against order dated 13.09.2017, passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No.112 of 2016, Surendra Singh and others vs. Maharaja Manujendra Shah and others, whereby applications (paper no. 28A, 30A & 33A) filed by the defendants/revisionists under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code has been rejected. 3. Plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 4 instituted the said suit seeking following reliefs:-
a. That a decree for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 20.03.2014 by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and 3 and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dehradun-III at page No. 91 to 238, Serial No. 471, Bahi No.1, Jild No. 457, on 20.03.2014 declaring the same to be illegal, void without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiffs, be passed consequently informing the office of Sub Registrar, Dehradun.
b. That a decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants their assigns, servants, officers and agents from anyhow creating third party rights without settling; the matter with the plaintiffs.
4. Facts leading to filing of aforesaid civil revisions are that defendant no.4 (respondent no.7 herein) claiming himself to be the absolute owner of the suit property known as Doonside Estate (Chandal Garhi) Mussoorie, Dehradun entered into an agreement to sell/memorandum of understanding, with the plaintiff (respondent no. 1 to 4 herein). The plaintiffs were agreed to purchase the suit property in the year 2008, and paid an earnest amount of Rs.27 lakh towards part of a sale consideration. The plaintiffs and defendant no. 4 on account of mutual trust between them did not feel the need of a written agreement at that time, but, subsequently a written unregistered agreement was executed on 09.04.2013 on a stamp paper of Rs.100 and the defendant no.4 acknowledged the receipt of Rs.27 lakhs from the plaintiff. The defendant no.4 induced the plaintiffs that he is the owner of the suit property and suit property is free from all encumbrances. The total sale consideration was decided to be paid at Rs. 3 crore and the defendant no.4 has admitted the receipt of Rs. 27 lakhs from the plaintiffs towards part of sale consideration.
5. Earlier the defendant no. 1 (revisionist in CLR No. 136 of 2017) instituted a suit no. 359 of 2011, titled Maharaja Manujendra Shah vs. State of Uttarakhand and another for a decree of ejectment and injunction against the state government. It has been pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff’s grandfather Late Maharaja Narendra Shah was the ruler of erstwhile princely State of Tehri Garhwal. The suit property was the personal property of Late Maharaj Narendra Shah and was never been the property of erstwhile State of Tehri Garhwal. After the death of Maharaja Narendra Shah on 22.09.1950 defendant no.1’s father Late Maharaja Manvendra Shah became the sole successor of all personal properties, including the suit property. In said suit defendant no.4 (respondent no.7 herein) moved an application for his impleadment on 19.07.12 which was dismissed on 20.11.12. The suit filed by the defendant no.1 i.e. Maharaja Manujendra Shah was dismissed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 02.04.2019, in which, it has been held that defendant no.1 is not the owner of the suit property. The defendant no.1 though was not the owner of the suit property, had sold the suit property to defendant nos.2 & 3 (respondent no. 5 & 6 herein) through registered sale deed dated 20.03.2014. It is alleged that the sale deed is a collusive one. The plaintiffs no. 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 112 of 2016 sought a relief that the sale deed dated 20.03.2014 be declared as illegal and void. Fur
