SARTHAK LANDCON PVT. LTD. Vs. AKILA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant No.5 has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the order dtd. 10/7/2025 passed by the learned trial Court in RCS No. 1359-A/2023 whereby the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was allowed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, declaring the registered sale deed dtd. 7/10/2021 (executed in favour of appellant/defendant No.5) null and void and for permanent injunction against appellant/defendant No.5 with respect to the land situated in Survey No. 123/1, 124, 125/1 and 129/1 admeasuring total 1.191 hec. in village Mayakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore. The respondent No.1/plaintiff averred in her plaint that an agreement to sale was executed on 22/9/1992 between her husband Mohabbat Ali and Mangu Singh (who was father of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4) with respect to aforesaid suit land. It was also averred that the entire sale consideration was paid by Mohabbat Ali to Mangu Singh and said Mangu Singh delivered possession of the entire suit property to Mohabbat Ali. As there was very good relation between the said two persons, the registered sale deed was not executed. However, Mangu Singh and after him, the defendants No. 1 to 3 and 4 never disturbed the peaceful possession of Mohabbat Ali (husband of plaintiff). Even after the death of those two persons, there was no dispute. It has further been stated in the plaint that the suit was claimed to be filed for the reason that one Girish Jain came along with some goons for taking forcible possession of the suit property and when complaint about the same was presented in the Police Station Lasudia, he produced sale deed dtd. 7/10/2021 with respect to sale of a part of the suit land. Thus, the plaintiff came to know about execution of a sale deed, hence the suit was filed.

(3.) The plaintiff, with respect to this sale deed dtd. 7/10/2021, averred that the same was executed without receiving sale consideration and respondent No.1-Bane Singh's name is not mentioned in the same i.e. he is not one of the executant of the sale deed as the Bane Singh was also having his share in the property as one of the legal heirs of Late Mangu Singh thus the same is not valid. It has further been averred that the sale deed has been executed by delivering paper possession as the possession of the property is with the plaintiff and for all these reasons, it was pleaded that the sale deed is null and void and for the reason that all the ingredients of a sale are satisfied in the case of plaintiff i.e. possession has been delivered, entire sale consideration has been paid and thus, plaintiff is the title holder of the suit property as such, the relief of declaration of title on the suit property, declaration of sale deed dtd. 7/10/2021 as null and void and for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 with respect of alienation and construction on the property was prayed for. Significantly, the specific performance of the agreement to sale was not sought. It may be profitable to point out here that the so-called agreement to sale dtd. 22/9/1992 is an unregistered document.