SHEIKH SIDDIQUI QURESHI Vs. OMKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant 2 challenging the order dtd.13/7/2017 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, District Seoni in RCSA No.1600204/2016 whereby trial Court has dismissed petitioner/defendant 2's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

(2.) In short the facts are that the plaintiff-Omkar Singh has instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and for declaring the sale deed dtd. 24/25/5/2016 to be null and void and ineffective as against the plaintiff executed in respect of agricultural land Khasra No. 567 area 4.01 hectare, situated in Village Gangerua, Tahsil and District Seoni with the contentions that the plaintiff is bhumiswami and in possession of the land, which he purchased in the name of his minor son Harsh Kumar-defendant 1 on 22/6/1984 for consideration of Rs.6,000.00. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant 1 being involved in bad habits of consuming liquor etc., the defendant 2 firstly got executed an agreement dtd.7/7/2014 in his favour from defendant 1 in respect of the disputed land @ Rs.1,60,000.00 per acre, on the basis of which a civil suit No.4-A/2015 was filed by him and during pendency of such suit the defendant 2 abducted the defendant 1, which was also complained by the plaintiff to the police and during this period, without making any payment of sale consideration, got executed sale deed on 24/25/5/2016 in his favour and after one month of execution of sale deed, judgment and decree was passed on 18/6/2016 in the suit for specific performance, which in the light of already executed sale deed, is of no use and is null and void. It is also contended that the plaintiff is in possession of the land since execution of sale deed dtd.22/6/1984. During pendency of suit an application for amendment was also filed seeking amendment in the plaint to the effect that the suit land is undivided property of the joint Hindu family, which was purchased for the benefit of members of joint Hindu family and similarly, relief clause was also amended in that regard.

(3.) Upon service of summons of the suit, the defendant 2 appeared and instead of filing written statement, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC raising objection of maintainability of the suit as well as objection in respect of territorial jurisdiction of the Court and payment of Court fee. It is contended in the application, that the suit as filed, is barred by provisions contained in Sec. 3, 4 and 45 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. It is also contended that the sale deed is of value of Rs.7,97,000.00 and the Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction only to the extent of Rs.5,00,000.00, on which the plaintiff is required to pay ad-valorem Court fee. With these objections, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.