Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 264 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-10

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2025
Judgment : 1. This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.1999 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur City (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. 66/98 whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants-respondents (for short ‘the defendants’) for recovery of Rs. 1,49,490/-. As per the plaint, plaintiff participated in the auction and bid of the plaintiff was highest i.e. at Rs. 77,500/-. Plaintiff deposited 1/4th amount of the bid amount (Rs. 19,375/-) on 10.12.1986 and remaining 3/4th amount was deposited on 27.04.1987 through bankers cheque but the defendants had not given the possession of the auctioned property and also not executed the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4907/1991 and this Court vide order dated 25.04.1995 allowed the writ petition filed by the plaintiff. In compliance of the said order, on 02.11.1995 defendants executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the possession to him. An opportunity was granted by this Court vide order dated 25.04.1995 to the plaintiff to file revision petition, accordingly, the plaintiff filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 68/1995. This Court vide order dated 03.01.1996 while deciding the revision petition categorically observed that plaintiff can claim interest by filing of suit. 3. Defendants filed a written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff and categorically mentioned that disputed premises was in possession of Mangli and her son-Satya Narayan. So, on account of their possession, sale deed could not be executed. After their eviction, sale deed was executed. So, plaintiff is not entitled to get any interest because there was no condition in the auction that interest would be paid on account of delay. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues-: 5. To prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and to prove their case, defendants got examined Dw-1 R L Vijay.After hearing both the parties, trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 6. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues-: 5. To prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and to prove their case, defendants got examined Dw-1 R L Vijay.After hearing both the parties, trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had already deposited 1/4th of bid amount on 10.12.1986 and remaining 3/4th amount was deposited on 27.04.1987. So, it was the duty of the defendants to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the possession of the disputed premises but they had not given the possession. So, plaintiff wrote several letters and sent notices to the defendants and after that plaintiff filed civil writ petition, in which this Court on 25.04.1995 directed the defendants to hand over the possession to the plaintiff. In compliance of the said order, on 02.11.1995 defendants executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the possession to him. So, plaintiff is entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum from 27.04.1987 to 02.11.1995. So, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Mohd. Shariq Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.’ reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 308 and the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Lalit Madhan and Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.’ reported in 64 (1996) DLT497. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that there was no provision for paying interest on account of delay in the bid conditions. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. 10. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. 10. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff participated in the auction and his bid was highest i.e. at Rs. 77,500/-. As per the conditions of the bid, on 24.04.1987 defendants had not given the possession of the disputed premises to the plaintiff and not executed the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed writ petition against the defendants, in which this court vide order dated 25.04.1995 directed defendants to handover the disputed premises. In compliance of the said order, on 02.11.1995 defendants executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the possession to him. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Trial court had to allow the suit filed by the plaintiff and awarded interest @ 6% per annum on the bid amount of Rs.77,500/-from the date of payment made by the plaintiff i.e. 27.04.1987 to 02.11.1995. Hence, the appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be partly allowed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 09.12.1999 passed by the trial court is set aside and the defendants are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the bid amount of Rs.77,500/- from the date of payment made by the plaintiff i.e. 27.04.1987 to 02.11.1995. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.