IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA ON THE 4^th DECEMBER 2024 F.A. No. 296 OF 2010 DHARMENDRA SINGH SENGAR VS.

MOHAN VISHWAKARMA (DEAD) THR. HIS L.R.s AND OTHERS Appearance : Shri N.K. Gupta, Senior Counsel with Shri S.D.S. Bhadauria, Counsel for Appellant None for respondents no. 1 and 2, though served Shri D.K. Budholiya, Counsel for respondent no. 3

JUDGMENT

This First Appeal, under Section 96 of CPC, has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 22-9-2010 passed by 3^rd Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 19-A/2010.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that the appellant filed a civil suit for declaration of Sale deed as null and void and also for permanent injunction. It was pleaded that the appellant is the owner of plot admeasuring 45x90 sq. ft situated in Ward No. 34, Puranpura, Vidisha which is part of Survey No. 2537/2. The appellant agreed to sell his plot in view of personal requirements and accordingly decided to sell his plot to respondent for a consideration of Rs. 2,30,000/-. A registered sale deed dated 18-2-2008 was executed in favour of respondent and accordingly, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND respondent gave a cheque No. 895631 dated 15-2-2008 for Rs. 2,30,000/-. The cheque was given in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. However, the respondent continuously gave an assurance that he would deposit the requisite amount in his bank but did not do so. Ultimately, he gave another cheque of Rs. 2,30,000/- in the month of Feb. 2009. The appellant presented the cheque however, the State Bank of Indore informed that the cheque has been dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Accordingly, the appellant sent a registered notice, but the same was not received by the respondent. Thus, it was prayed that since, the sale deed was without consideration amount, and the same was got executed by playing fraud on the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the sale deed declared as null and void and is also entitled to get back the possession.

3. The respondent did not appear before the Trial Court and accordingly he was proceeded exparte.

4. The Trial Court after recording evidence and hearing the appellant, dismissed the suit on the ground that a sale deed cannot be declared as null and void only on the ground that it was executed without consideration amount.

5. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, it is submitted by Counsel for the Appellant, that it is not a case of execution of sale deed without consideration. In fact the cheque of Rs. 2,30,000/- was given in lieu of consideration amount, and since, the cheque stood dishonoured, therefore, the sale deed was got executed by respondent by playing fraud on the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant has filed I.A. No. 3824 of 2012 for amendment in the plaint, thereby claiming alternative prayer for refund of Rs. 2,30,000/-.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND

6. The L.R.s of respondent/defendant have not appeared even after service of notice.

7. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that he has purchased the property in question from the L.R.s of original defendant.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

9. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that sale deed cannot be declared as null and void merely on the ground that it was executed without consideration amount.

10. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in its proper perspective. It is the case of the appellant, that in lieu of consideration amount, the cheque was given which subsequently stood dishonoured as a result the consideration amount remained unpaid. If the aforesaid aspect is considered then it is clear that the intention of the respondent was dishonest right from the very inception and his intention was to play fraud on the appellant as well as not to pay the price of the land. The Supreme Cour