A claim of mental instability at the time of executing a registered Sale Deed is insufficient to invalidate the document.

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

This appeal is filed against the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar in Original Suit No.171 of 2023, “Jaan Illahi Vs. Pravez and another” whereby learned Civil Judge(S.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar allowed the application of respondent no.1/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. thereby directing the appellant /defendant no.2 and respondent no.2/defendant no.1 to maintain status quo at the spot.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.2 would submit that the suit property was sold by respondent no.1/plaintiff to respondent no.2/defendant no.1 vide registered Sale Deed dated 01.08.2022; that, thereafter respondent no.2/defendant no.1 executed the Sale Deed dated 26.07.2023 duly registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Roorkee, District Haridwar; that, after about one year of the registration of the Sale Deed in favour of respondent no.2/defendant no.1, respondent no.1/plaintiff filed present suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed along with application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff was allowed by the impugned order dated 01.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.2 would submit that he is a bonafide purchaser and paid the consideration through bank transaction and has registered Sale Deed in his favour by the person who is also a bonafide purchaser of the suit property by duly executed Sale Deed by respondent no.1/plaintiff and without adverting on this fact the Trial Court has directed the appellant/defendant no.2 to maintain status-quo notwithstanding the fact that the suit property was purchased for installation of the industry for which the appellant/defendant no.2 has got the permission on 24.07.2023 and had erected 112 cement post and raised other construction which is also noted in the impugned order itself.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.2 would submit that impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law and there is no prima facie case in favour of respondent no.1/plaintiff and even the balance of convenience was not in his favour.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant no.2 would further submit that because of the impugned order irreparable loss is caused to the appellant which cannot be compensated in terms of money to appellant/defendant no.2, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff would submit that fraud has been played upon him by respondent no.2/defendant no.1, who is his nephew i.e. son of his sister; that, respondent no.1/plaintiff was severely ill at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed allegedly executed in favour of respondent no.2/defendant no.1; that, when respondent no.1 came to know about this fraud he filed the present suit and also filed criminal case. However, he would fairly concede that the Sale Deed in favour of respondent no.2/defendant no.1 was a registered Sale Deed and would also concede that in his plaint he has not stated that the Sale Deed executed in favour of respondent no.2/defendant no.1 was not bearing his signatures and or he had not gone to and appeared for execution and registration of Sale Deed before the Sub-registrar; that, it is not stated in plaint how the fraud was played upon him by respondent no.2/defendant no.1; that, the only thing which he has stated in plaint is that he was not mentally stable at the time of execution of Sale Deed in favour of respondent no.2/defendant no.1.

7. The mute question is can a ground or averment in plaint that executant of a registered document was not of stable mind be a ground for cancellation of a duly registered document or not. This Court is prima facie of the view on this question that merely such averment cannot be the ground for cancellation of a duly registered document.

8. In view of the abo