NAVNEET GARG Vs. CHHOTABHAI JEETHABHAI PATEL AND CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed on behalf of applicants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 21.9.2010 (Annexure-A/1) passed by IInd Additional District Judge. Betul in Civil Original Suit No. 8-A/10, dismissing their application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. for dismissal of the suit of the respondents No. 1 to 7.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent No. 1 firm and its partners the respondents No. 2 to 7 filed the impugned suit for declaration against the applicants and the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 declaring the sale deed 19.5.2003 executed by respondent No. 8/defendant No. 3 as partner of respondent No. 1 in favour of applicant/defendant No. 1 to be as ab initio void and also to declare that the same is not binding against them. As per further averments on behalf of respondent No. 1 the respondent No. 8 had never executed the aforesaid sale deed in favour of applicant/defendant No. 1. In fact the disputed property nas been sold on behalf of respondent No. 1 at the instance of its partners respondents No. 2 to 8 plaintiffs to one Ashok Dixit vide executing the registered sale deed dated 11.6.2003. With these averments the impugned suit with the prayer to grant the aforesaid relief has been filed.

(3.) After receiving the notice of the suit on behalf of the applicants/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 the above-mentioned application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. was filed on 12.11.2009 on the grounds that respondent No. 8 an active partner of respondent No. 1 firm. earlier entered into an agreement to sale with one Ramesh Shah and pursuant to such agreement at the instance of Ramesh Shah on behalf of his firm executed the sale deed 19.5.2003 in favour of applicant No. 1. Accordingly. on behalf of such firm the consideration paid by the applicant No. 1 was accepted by him. Subsequent to such sale deed dated 19.5.2303, the respondent No 1 firm further alienated such property in favour of one Ashok Dixit vide sale deed dated 11.6.2003. In any case, after transferring the property by the respondent No. 1/ firm through it's partners, to applicant No. 1 such film did not have any right, title or authority to file the impugned suit against the applicants. According to third ground after transferring the property on earlier point of time to the applicant No. 1, the sari(- property could not be transferred by the respondent No. I or it's partners to said Ashok Dixit. In such premises, such subsequent transfer is not binding against the applicant No. 1. As per fourth ground, after transferring the property the respondents did not have any legal right or title a to seek the relief prayed in the plaint on the basis of cause oI action mentioned in it. As such the impugned suit is liable to he dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. and accordingly the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made. Such prayer is also made stating the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 did not have any locus-stanch to file the impugned suit.