Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 3438 (PNJ)

Mainpal v. Sanjeev Kumar

2023-12-19

GURBIR SINGH

body2023
Judgment Mr. Gurbir Singh, J. Challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal (for brevity – Appellate Court), whereby appeal against order dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal (for brevity – Trial Court) was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the paper-book, are that the petitioners/defendants were recorded as owners in possession of the suit property (as mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint) in the revenue record. They sold the suit property to respondents/plaintiffs vide three sale deeds dated 31.05.2019, 09.07.2020 and 11.07.2019. So, the petitioners/defendants were left with no concern with the suit property in any manner. However, at a later stage, the petitioners/defendants started interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit property. When they did not stop despite repeated requests made by the respondents/plaintiffs, an application for ad-interim injunction was moved by the respondents/plaintiffs for restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering into the lawful and peaceful possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit property. Vide order dated 12.05.2023, the learned Trial Court observed that though execution of sale deed qua the suit property has been admitted but handing over of possession of suit property is denied as complete payment of sale consideration was not made. Since both parties were claiming possession over the suit property, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua the possession over the suit property. So, the application for ad-interim injunction was dismissed. However, the appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the said order dated 12.05.2023 was allowed, thereby restraining petitioners/defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has argued that the learned Trial Court had ordered to maintain status quo qua possession of the land in dispute. Respondents/plaintiffs filed appeal against the said order, which was allowed vide order dated 24.08.2023 and petitioners/defendants have been restrained from interfering in the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit property. Learned counsel has further argued that since respondents/plaintiffs failed to make full payment of the sale consideration, so the sale was not complete and possession of property was not handed over to respondents/plaintiffs. Learned counsel has further argued that since respondents/plaintiffs failed to make full payment of the sale consideration, so the sale was not complete and possession of property was not handed over to respondents/plaintiffs. The Appellate Court has wrongly appreciated that there is an endorsement/writing on the back-side of the cheque mentioning therein that the cheque has been cancelled and cash amount has been received. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the said endorsement/writing has been obtained by playing fraud by the respondents/plaintiffs only to avoid payment of cheques. A complaint to police authorities was also made but no action has been taken. The possession of the land in dispute was never delivered to the respondents/plaintiffs. Moreover, the petitioners/defendants have sold a share from the joint land. So, the possession of specific portion could not be given to the respondents/plaintiffs. The petitioners/defendants are still in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. Khasra Girdawari is also in the name of the petitioners/defendants. Actually, it is the respondents/plaintiffs who want to take forcible possession of the land in dispute without making full payment of the consideration. The petitioners/defendants have already filed a suit for recovery and in the alternate, for declaration of the sale deed in question to be null and void. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, on the other hand, has placed on record copies of three sale deeds dated 31.05.2019, 11.07.2019 and 29.06.2020. It is submitted that had the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, as mentioned in the sale deed dated 11.07.2019 was not paid, then there was no question of executing another sale deed dated 29.06.2020 by the petitioners/defendants in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. There is clear recital in the sale deed that possession of the land has already been given to the purchaser at the spot. Since the cheque was already given to respondents/plaintiffs, so, on payment of cash amount, endorsement regarding cancellation of cheque was made by the petitioners/defendants. After selling the property, the petitioners/defendants were left with no right, title or interest in the property. 5. I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Admittedly, there is endorsement/writing on the back-side of cheque, mentioning therein that the cheque has been cancelled and cash amount has been received. After selling the property, the petitioners/defendants were left with no right, title or interest in the property. 5. I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Admittedly, there is endorsement/writing on the back-side of cheque, mentioning therein that the cheque has been cancelled and cash amount has been received. Since said cheque was in the possession of petitioners/defendants, so prima facie, it cannot be said that the said endorsement was a result of fraud. Moreover, after the execution of sale deed dated 11.07.2019, another sale deed dated 29.06.2020 was executed by the petitioners/defendants. Had there been any dispute between the parties regarding payment of amount of sale deed, then there was no question of executing another sale deed without settling the dispute. There is clear recital in the sale deed that possession of the property has already been given to the respondents/plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has placed on the file a copy of Khasra Girdawari showing that they are in continuous possession of the suit property. When the document of title shows the respondents/plaintiffs to be owners of the property and there is clear recital that possession was handed over to the respondents/plaintiffs, then the said entry loses any significance. Even otherwise, if payment is made by cheque, and cheque is dishonoured, then the sale deed cannot be considered invalid only on this ground. The respondents/plaintiffs have already filed a suit for recovery of the amount of cheque. In the said suit, it is also pleaded that sale deed is null and void on account of non-payment of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- of the cheque. Since the payment by cheque is a legal payment and parties has right to recover the amount if cheque is not encashed and prima facie the sale deed cannot be considered as null and void on this ground when there is written document then any oral averment beyond the said written document has no significance. 7. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by learned Appellate Court. The present revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with this judgment.