Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 107 (RAJ)

Harka Ram v. Kartar Singh

2018-01-08

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 26.10.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 27.01.1992. 3. The petitioners-defendants filed application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC with the plea that the suit was premature, inasmuch as, they were not in possession of the title (Sanad) of the land in question, which was sought to be transferred by way of said agreement to sale and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 4. A reply to the application was filed, inter alia, indicating that averments have been made in the suit that though the defendants were entitled to seek the Sanad, they were deliberately delaying the said getting of Sanad, only with a view to frustrate the rights of the plaintiffs and, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was not maintainable and/or the same was premature. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the allotment of land in the name of Jalu Ram, the possession of the petitioners is disputed, agreement has been entered into by the said Jalu Ram as claimed in the plaint, wherein, it has been indicated that the sale deed would be executed on the date the tenancy rights would be acquired and, therefore, there was no reason why the suit would be maintainable. 6. As the allegations made were that deliberately the Sanad was being taken, it cannot be said that no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiffs and, consequently, dismissed the application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the petitioners are in possession of title of the suit property, the suit for specific performance cannot be maintained, inasmuch as, there is nothing available with the petitioners so far as the title to the land is concerned so as to transfer the same to the plaintiffs and, therefore, for lack of cause of action, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 8. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the possession of the land is with the respondents-plaintiffs and though the petitioners are entitled to seek the Sanad of the land in question, specific averment has been made to indicate that they were avoiding to do the same, only with a view to frustrate the agreement to sale entered into by their father and, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit, in this regard, seeking enforcement of the said agreement to sale, cannot be maintained. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioners essentially has no basis. In a given case, where the defendants have imperfect title and are entitled to perfect their title by way of conveyance etc., make default in seeking such perfection of title, the suit can be maintained by the plaintiffs as is evident from provisions of Section 13(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The trial court has rightly found that it cannot be said that the suit is premature and/or does not disclose any cause of action while dismissing the application. The said order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted on any ground. 11. Consequently, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.