PUSHPA PATEL Vs. NEELIMA TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision u/s 115 of CPC has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved by order dtd. 9/5/2022 passed by 14th Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in Regular Civil Suit No.175-A/2022, in which, the trial Court has rejected the application of the applicants filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff has instituted a suit against applicants/defendant No.1 to 6 before the trial Court seeking decree of permanent injunction by pleading that on 21/2/2021 the respondent/plaintiff entered into an agreement with Late Lakhanlal Patel s/o Late Khitai r/o House No.19, Vivekananda Ward, Badhoraha Tola, Badi Ukhari, Jabalpur for purchase of 35,000 sq.ft. (out of total 0.860 hectares) of agricultural land at the rate of Rs.490.00 per sq.ft. for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,71,50,000.00 bearing 'Rin Pustika' No.835-000550 and Khasra No.56/6 situated at Laxmipur, Settlement No.643, Patwari Halka No.25/31, R.I.Circle, Jabalpur-I, Old Tahsil Jabalpur, New Tahsil Adhartal, District Jabalpur. The plaintiff further pleaded that Late Lakhanlal Patel handed over possession of the suit land. At present the suit land bears Khasra No.56/6/9. After death of Lakhanlal Patel it has been recorded in the names of applicants/defendants being his legal heirs. Defendant No.1 (Smt. Pushpa Patel) is wife of Late Lakhanlal Patel and defendants No.2 to 6 are his sons. He further stated that as per agreement the sale consideration was agreed between the parties at the rate of Rs.490.00 per sq.ft. and the total sale consideration of the suit land was Rs.1,71,50,000.00. It is also averred that out of total sale consideration on 21/2/2011 the respondent/plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.25.00 lacs through Cheque No.976750 drawn at State Bank of India, Branch Khamaria, Jabalpur and amount of Rs.1,25,00,000.00 was paid on various dates in cash and balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registry. It is also stated that from the date of agreement i.e. 21/2/2011 the respondent/plaintiff in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit land. It is further case of plaintiff that on 25/1/2022 when she had gone to see her land, she found that applicants/defendants were raising illegal construction. When plaintiff raised objection, then defendants picked up quarrel and assaulted her. The defendants were forcibly interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff and disputed her possess. Therefore, on 25/1/2022 she lodged a written report at Police Station, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur. Then she filed aforesaid civil suit seeking relief of permanent injunction against the applicants/defendants.

(3.) The applicants/defendants No.1 to 6 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC claimed rejection of plaint. It is averred in the said application that agreement does not bear signature of Lakhanlal Patel and he had not executed the same in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband conspired together to forge signature of Late Lakhanlal on unregistered sale deed. Though the plaintiff has mentioned in alleged agreement that an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 (Rs.1,25,00,000.00 and Rs.25,00,000.00) was paid by cheque but she has not filed any documentary evidence such as bank account statement, income tax return to prove the same. During lifetime Late Lakhanlal Patel had not filed any suit. Lakhanlal Patel expired on 2/4/2015 and thereafter names of defendants were recorded in revenue records being legal heirs. But, present suit has been filed after 10 years, whereas date 31/3/2011 is mentioned in agreement regarding payment of balance amount. The plaintiff's suit was barred by time. Had there been such agreement of receiving Rs.25.00 lacs by cheque and Rs.125.00 lacs in cash the same would have been in their knowledge. In agreement Khasra No.56/6 total area 0.86 hectares has been mentioned, whereas plaintiff filed document of year 2021-22 M.P. Computerised Land Record wherein Khasra No.56/6/9 area 0.298 hectares is mentioned. The plaintiff has not mentioned actual land. Plaintiff admitted that defendants were carrying out construction over suit property, whereas she is in possession. Hence, her averments are contradictory. There is no sale consideration and hence, it is not valid agreement. Therefore, suit of plaintiff is not maintainable and plaint is liable to be rejected.