Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Pankaj Purohit, J
Sri Arjun Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sri Chiranjilal – Respondent
FA No.135 of 2025 | Original Suit No.108 of 2019
SL. No
Date
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
FA No.135 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The appellant-defendant has put to challenge the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Original Suit No.108 of 2019, Sri Chiranjilal vs. Sri Arjun Singh, whereby the suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the respondent–plaintiff, Sri Chiranjilal, was partly decreed, and the sale deed in-question was declared illegal, null and void. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that suit has been filed by respondent-plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed in-question only on the ground that the entire sale consideration has not been paid, rather the consideration which has been paid by cheques amounting to Rs.16 lakhs, those cheques were bounced. The learned trial court has come to this conclusion in the impugned judgment that since the sale consideration has not been paid to the respondent- plaintiff, therefore, the sale deed is null and void and declared as such. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant heavily relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and others; reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 to submit that even in
such a situation where the sale consideration has not been paid completely and only part payment has been made, in that situation, sale has been completed, there arises no question of cancellation of the sale deed. He further submits that it was the case of the appellant- defendant before the trial court in the written statement that the amount which has been paid to the respondent- defendant was the actual sale consideration. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph nos.29.8 & 29.9 of the aforesaid judgment. 7. From perusal of the impugned judgment also, it is reflected that the said law has been cited by the appellant-defendant before the learned trial court, but the judgment has not been considered by learned trial court, rather only saying that the facts of the case are not applicable to the present set of facts. Therefore, the said case has not been relied upon the learned trial court. 8. I have gone through para 88 of the judgment impugned before this Court as well as the case law cited by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant true and correct. This is a case where the part of the sale consideration has been paid and only cheques amounting to Rs.16 lakhs were bounced. Therefore, the facts appear to be similar and the law enunciated by the Apex Court in such situation
would be applicable. 9. Admit. 10. Sent for TCR. 11. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable within four weeks. 12. Steps to be taken within a week. 13. List on 17.10.2025. 14. Till the next date of listing, execution of the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Original Suit No.108 of 2019, Sri Chiranjilal vs. Sri Arjun Singh, shall remain stayed. 15. Stay application (IA No.1/2025) stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.07.2025 AK
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
