Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 438 (RAJ)

Surendra Pal v. Boota Singh

2012-02-14

VINEET KOTHARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. These two misc. appeals have been filed, by the appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.4.2011 by which the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff-appellant in a suit for cancellation of sale-deeds dated 6.10.2010 executed by respondent-defendant No. 1-Boota Singh in favour of respondents/defendants, namely, Babina Narang (in CMA No. 605/2011) and Vijay Kumar (in CMA No. 604/2011), have been rejected. 3. Mr. J.L. Purohit, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vineet Jain, submitted that the plaintiffs father, namely, Sh. Hansraj purchased the land in question, situated in Kila Nos. 13 and 18 measuring 1 Bigha each vide the sale deed dated 22.4.1980 executed by the brother of respondent No. 1 Boota Singh, namely, Mr. Thana Singh. The plaintiff thus claimed that the land in question could not have been sold by the respondent No. 1 Boota Singh to the present defendants (Babina Naranga and Vijay Kumar), who are going ahead with the development of a residential colony there, upon conversion of the land use and in the present suit for cancellation of the sale deeds, the learned trial Court ought to have protected the interest of the present plaintiff as the defendants could not be said to be bona fide purchasers of the said part of the land in question. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary & Ors. v. Sitaram Bhulchandra Sukhankar & Ors. reported in AIR 1983 SC 742 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Shisodia, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants, purchasers under the impugned sale deeds dated 6.1.2010, and Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.l, the seller, Boota Singh submitted that in the present suit, firstly the Thana Singh, from whom the plaintiffs father Sh. Hansraj had purchased the land under the registered sale deed dated 22.4.1980, and who is the brother of Boota Singh, has not been even arrayed as defendant in the present suit. Moreso, the fact is that about chunk of land ad-measuring 10 Bigha, a partition decree had been passed in the revenue suit by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 20.5.1998, against which an appeal has also been preferred and same is pending before the learned Board of Revenue in which all the claimants are contesting for their respective rights. Moreso, the fact is that about chunk of land ad-measuring 10 Bigha, a partition decree had been passed in the revenue suit by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 20.5.1998, against which an appeal has also been preferred and same is pending before the learned Board of Revenue in which all the claimants are contesting for their respective rights. He further submitted that the respondents-defendants are the bona fide purchasers of the land in question and besides the 2 Bigha under the impugned sale deeds, they have purchased approximately 20 Bigha of land from others and they are developing a residential colony and, so also, conversion of the land has already taken place on 2.11.2011. 5. They further submitted that the present appellant-plaintiff, Surendra Pal had no right over the said 2 Bigha of land in question and until and unless the sale deeds dated 6.1.2010 executed in favour of present defendants are cancelled by the trial Court, the development of the land cannot be stopped. He further submitted that in view of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, since under the previous sale deed dated 22.4.1980, the present appellant-plaintiff failed to take possession of the land in question allegedly sold by Thana Singh to the father of the plaintiff, who is the brother of defendant No. 1 Boota Singh, his right got extinguished under Section 27 of the Limitation Act. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant observed that "We refrain from discussing the evidence and recording our conclusions because evidence is still to be led and the contentions and disputes have to be examined in depth and any expression of opinion by this Court may prejudice one or the other party in having a fair trial and uninhibited decision. '' On the facts, however, since the rival parties had claimed rights in the land in question, the Hon'ble Apex Court felt that in the matter in hand, the temporary injunction ought to have been granted.In the present case, this Court finds that there are more than two brothers claiming their respective shares in the said property and their rival claims about the partition having taken place between the parties or not, the same is the subject matter of the suit pending before the learned Board of Revenue in the appeal. 7. 7. The purchasers (defendants) under the sale deeds in question dated 6.1.2010 sought to be cancelled, are the purchaser/s for consideration, and unless such sale deeds are cancelled or declared void by a decree of competent Court in the present suit finally, the development of the land in question cannot be stopped. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents-purchasers, Mr. Manish Shisodia, however, fairly submitted that some adequate amount as security may be deposited by these bona fide purchasers with the learned trial Court to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff. 9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the rejection of the temporary injunction application by the learned Court below cannot be faulted. By way of two sale deeds dated 6.1.2010, the defendants (Babina Narang and Vijay Kumar) have purchased land in question by paying consideration to the defendant No. 1-Boota Singh for the two kilas of land of Kila Nos. 12 and 13 & 19 and 18, Rs. 4,10,000/- and Rs. 5,50,000/- respectively, and since dispute is only for one out of two kilas sold, the half of the sale consideration for the impugned sale would come to Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 2,25,000/- respectively. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to protect the interest of the appellant-plaintiff, it is considered expedient that the defendants, namely, Babina Naranga and Vijay Kumar, purchasers of the suit property under the sale deeds in question dated 6.1.2010, shall deposit a sum double the amount of sale consideration disclosed in the said sale deed for the dispute kila viz. Rs. 4,10,000/- and Rs. 5,50,000/- respectively in the interest bearing deposit of 3 years in their respective names and FDR/s shall be kept with the learned trial Court for a period of three years for the time being and the same shall remain subject to final decision of suit itself by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is expected to decide the said suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of two years from today. No order as to costs.Appeal Disposed of. *******