REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6733 OF 2022

Balram Singh

…Appellant

Versus

Kelo Devi

…Respondent

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 330/2001, by which the High Court has

dismissed the second appeal and has confirmed the judgment and

decree passed by the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and

decree of dismissal of suit passed by the learned trial Court, the original

defendant has preferred the present appeal.

2.

The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the respondent herein – original plaintiff (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘original plaintiff’) instituted Original Suit No. 696 of 1997 before

the learned trial Court for permanent injunction only. The said suit was

1

Digitally signed by

SNEHA

Date: 2022.09.23

16:26:04 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996.

The original plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the

defendant from disturbing her possession in the suit property.

2.1

In the said suit, the appellant herein – original defendant filed a

counter-claim seeking the decree of possession.

2.2

The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the original

plaintiff and refused to grant permanent injunction and allowed the

counter-claim of the defendant on the ground that original plaintiff could

not prove the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996 and that the original

plaintiff is in unauthorised possession of the suit property since

08.07.1997. The learned trial Court also held that the original plaintiff

could not prove the agreement to sell for a sale consideration of Rs.

14,000/- and also could not prove that she was put in possession of the

suit property on 23.03.1996.

2.3

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree

passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the original

plaintiff and allowing the counter-claim of the defendant, the original

plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned

first appellate Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment

and decree passed by the learned trial Court and consequently decreed

2

the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The learned first

appellate Court also dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant.

2.4

The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court has

been confirmed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order

passed in Second Appeal No. 330 of 2001.

2.5

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court in dismissing the second appeal and

confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned first

appellate Court, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and

dismissing the counter-claim, the original defendant has preferred the

present appeal.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – original

defendant has vehemently submitted that the original plaintiff filed a suit

for permanent injunction solely on the basis of the agreement to sell

dated 23.03.1996, which, as such, was unregistered.

3.1

It is submitted that such an unregistered agreement to sell is not

admissible in evidence. It is submitted that therefore both, the learned

first appellate Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave

error in passing a decree for permanent injunction and dismissing the

counter-claim.

3

3.2

It is further submitted that both, the learned first appellate Court as

well as the High Court have not properly appreciated the fact that the

suit filed by the original plaintiff was only for permanent injunction and

she by adopting a clever drafting did not seek the relief for specific

performance of agre