MANISH SINGH MALUKANI Vs. HARI PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/plaintiffs are questioning the validity of the order dtd. 25/1/2017 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the trial Court partly allowed the application preferred by the defendants filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Facts of the case in nutshell are that a civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for recovering the amount of Rs.37,50,000.00 along with interest of Rs.13,50,000.00. The claim of the plaintiffs was based upon the fact that defendant No.1 (Rambhuwan Singh) who later on died, entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 (Hari Prasad Gupta) and pursuant thereto, an agreement to sale of the land described in paragraph-1 of the plaint got executed on 25/5/2011 on consideration of Rs.7,50,00,000.00 and out of the said amount, Rs.50,00,000.00was received in advance in which Rs.42,00,000.00 was given in cash whereas Rs.8,00,000.00 was given through cheque bearing No.563676 of Union Bank of India by plaintiff No.2 before two witnesses. The said agreement got notarized at Rewa. Out of Rs.50,00,000.00 25% of the amount which came to Rs.12,50,000.00 was paid by plaintiff No.1; 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.25,00,000.00 was paid by plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and 25% of the remaining amount which came to Rs.12,50,000.00 was paid by defendant No.2 namely Hari Prasad Gupta.

(3.) Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is under challenge mainly on the ground that the document i.e. agreement to sale is being used for collateral purpose only and the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiffs seeking refund of money which was paid by them to defendant No.1 (Rambhuwan Singh). He has submitted that even an unregistered document can be used for collateral purpose because the plaintiffs are not claiming any right over an immovable property, but they are only asking recovery of the amount paid by them to defendant No.1 (Rambhuwan Singh). In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a case of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 1905 [Bondar Singh And Others Vs. Nihal Singh And Others].