Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3460 (ALL)

Saurabh Gupta Alias Guddu v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

2015-11-03

ANANT KUMAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the plaintiffs of Civil Suit No.653 of 2015 filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow, seek to question the order dated 18.5.2015, whereby the learned trial court has rejected their application for temporary injunction against dispossession from the property in question. 2. After having heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and having perused the material on record, we are clearly of the view that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the baseless application filed by the plaintiffs-appellants and the order impugned does not appear suffering from any arbitrariness or failure of justice so as to warrant interference in appeal. 3. Put in brief, the relevant aspects of the matter are that the plaintiffs-appellants had executed a registered sale deed for the property in question on 12.02.2013 on a sale consideration of Rs.3,90,000/-, as admittedly said to have been recited in the sale deed. The plaintiffs-appellants, however, filed the aforesaid suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction essentially on the submission that the sale consideration was otherwise settled at Rs.10.00 Lakhs in the agreement to sell; and though the property in question carried higher valuation but, at the request of defendant, they agreed to put the valuation only at a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- in the sale deed; and that the defendant otherwise agreed to take possession only after making payment of the rest of the amount. It has been the case of the appellants that the valuation of house in question was much excessive than the settled amount. The plaintiffs-appellants sought temporary injunction in the suit on the submissions that they were in possession of the property in question and the defendant was required to be restrained from dispossessing them. 4. The learned trial Court found the prayer for temporary injunction unacceptable while observing, inter-alia, that in the face of registered document of sale, any reference to the alleged unregistered agreement to sell was of no avail and such an unregistered document could not be given any credence. The trial Court also observed that even if suggestions of plaintiffs-appellants were taken into consideration, they had not filed any suit for recovery of the alleged remaining amount of sale consideration or for cancellation of the sale deed. The trial Court also observed that even if suggestions of plaintiffs-appellants were taken into consideration, they had not filed any suit for recovery of the alleged remaining amount of sale consideration or for cancellation of the sale deed. The trial Court also observed that as per the relief claimed, the plaintiffs-appellants wanted protection to the extent that they be not dispossessed until payment of the remaining amount of alleged sale consideration i.e. a sum of Rs.6,10,000/- and thus, if any such claim was found worth consideration, the injury, if at all to the plaintiffs, could not be an irreparable one. On these considerations, the trial court proceeded to reject the prayer for temporary injunction. 5. Seeking to question the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that in fact, another transaction was entered into by the wife of the respondent-defendant with other brother of the appellant No.1 and therein, the remaining amount of sale consideration, over and above the amount stated in the sale deed, was paid to the said seller. In this regard, notice said to have been served and Bank statement (Annexures 11 to 13 in this appeal) have been referred. Learned counsel would also argue that the plaintiffs being in possession of the property in question, they cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law and to that extent, their rights ought to have been protected by the learned trial Court. According to the counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court has ignored the citations referred before it for protection of possession; and on appropriate consideration of such citations, a case for grant of temporary injunction is made out in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. 6. Learned counsel has yet further informed that the plaintiffs-appellants have filed an application before the learned trial Court seeking leave to amend the plaint which is of course objected to by the defendant, but remains pending; and by way of this application, the plaintiffs-appellants seek to make the prayer for cancellation of the sale deed in question. The submissions do not make out a case for interference. 7. The fundamental aspects of the matter remain that admittedly, a sale deed has been executed by the plaintiffs-appellants in favour of the defendant-respondent for the property in question on a consideration of Rs.3,90,000/-. The sale deed has been duly registered. The submissions do not make out a case for interference. 7. The fundamental aspects of the matter remain that admittedly, a sale deed has been executed by the plaintiffs-appellants in favour of the defendant-respondent for the property in question on a consideration of Rs.3,90,000/-. The sale deed has been duly registered. Of course, a copy of the sale deed has not been placed on the record of this appeal by the appellants but indisputably, the sale deed carries the recital of sale consideration being a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- and the same have been paid. In the first place, any suggestion about any other amount having been settled towards sale consideration, over and above such a recital in the sale deed, cannot even be accepted. 8. Interestingly, the appellants chose not to file the suit for cancellation of the sale deed or for recovery of any alleged amount of the dues of the sale consideration over and above the amount recited in the sale deed and merely made a prayer for perpetual injunction. 9. If at all the plaintiffs-appellants have now moved an application seeking leave to amend, that would be a matter for the learned trial Court to consider in accordance with law but on the given status of record, in the suit for perpetual injunction where the relief claimed by the plaintiffs-appellants was directly contrary to the contents of registered sale deed, no prima facie case could have considered existing in their favour. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants also seeks to refer to the so called agreement between the parties wherein allegedly the sale consideration was stated at Rs.10.00 Lakhs. The trial Court has rightly observed that in the face of existing registered sale deed, any reference to any unregistered document was entirely baseless and would not enure to the benefit of appellants. 11. So far the suggestion of protection of possession and the decisions as referred by the plaintiffs-appellants before the learned trial Court are concerned, we find nothing of error or illegality on the part of the trial Court in distinguishing such decisions for the fundamental difference of facts that the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants is based on the allegation of the amount of sale consideration being over and above that stated in the sale deed. Having executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant-respondent and having admittedly received the amount of consideration as stated in the registered sale deed, the plaintiffs-appellants could only be said to be wrongfully retaining the possession of the property sold, if at all they are in possession. In the given set of facts and circumstances, principles of protecting bonafide possession are of no avail for the appellants. 12. The learned trial Court further appears right in observing that on the suggestion as made by the plaintiffs-appellants, at the most, their claim could be of extra money over and above the amount stated in the sale deed and merely for such a claim, it can be accepted that they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction prayed for was declined. Such observation of the learned trial Court remains in accordance with law and nothing of any error or illegality is seen therein. 13. The remote suggestion about some other transaction between the other brother of the appellants No.1 and the wife of the respondent is hardly of any consequence or even relevance. Neither the said brother of the appellant No.1 nor the wife of the respondent appear to be party to this litigation nor any other transaction between them and their dealings could make out a case in favour of the appellant in the present suit. This aspect of the matter does not require any further comment. 14. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this appeal is required to be dismissed. 15. However, before parting with the matter, we are constrained to observe that the very averments taken by the plaintiffs-appellants in the plaint clearly suggest that the valuation of house in question is much excessive than the amount said to be stated in the sale deed. The defendant-respondent is of course denying such an assertion but so far as plaintiffs-appellants are concerned, such an assertion may entail different consequences and liabilities upon them. 16. Therefore, a copy of this order be forwarded to the Inspector General (Stamps) for examining the matter and taking appropriate steps qua the sale deed in question as may be considered fit and necessary in the matter in accordance with law. 17. The appeal stands dismissed, subject to the observations and requirements foregoing. No costs.