VINAY KUMAR Vs. SANGEETA CHEETU & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alongwith the suit for specific performance instituted by the petitioner herein (for short "the plaintiff") against the respondents herein (for short "the defendants"), the former instituted an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the learned trial Court. Thereupon the learned trial Court directed the contesting parties to maintain status quo qua the nature, possession, construction and alienation over the suit land. However the aggrieved defendant instituted an appeal therefrom before the learned District Judge, Una who reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff on standing aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge has preferred the instant petition before this Court.

(2.) The learned District Judge while interfering with the order recorded by the learned trial Court on an application preferred therebefore under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had dwelt upon the factum of inefficacious recording of an agreement to sell qua the suit property by the plaintiff with the defendant concerned. The anvil qua the assigning by the learned District Judge of legal inefficacy embodying the agreement to sell stood underscored by it to spur from the trite factum of the contesting defendant No.1 not holding title to the suit property also it stood hinged upon the factum of hers not prima-facie holding any authorisation from its owner to either enter into any agreement to sell with the plaintiff qua the suit property detailed therein nor any suit for specific performance was hence institutable by the plaintiff besides no decree for specific performance was renderable against the defendant No. 1 Sangeeta Cheetu. Even though the aforesaid factum does bring forth qua the essential rubric for affording of relief in the application at hand may be hence not standing satiated yet certain facts surrounding it palpably the one of Sangeeta Cheetu subsequent thereto obtaining title qua the suit property from its owner was also enjoined to be revered. However, the learned District Judge slighted the aforesaid factum probandum whereas on the suit progressing to the stage of adduction of evidence whereat the plaintiff may succeed in establishing by resorting to the apposite procedure embodied in the CPC, of, Sangeeta Cheetu holding a Power of Attorney from the title holder of the suit property whereupon he may also establish the factum of hers standing entitled to execute with him an agreement to sell qua the suit property. However, the learned District Judge in a pedantic fashion has paid reverence merely to the factum of Sangeeta Cheetu not prima-facie holding title to the suit property whereupon it concluded of no decree of specific performance being renderable upon her whereas the aforesaid attendant circumstance also the afore-referred factum of the plaintiff concerting to during the course of trial of the suit establish qua hers holding authorization from the true owner for hers hence holding empowerment to with the plaintiff record an agreement to sell was also enjoined to be revered. The aforesaid omission of the learned District Judge has stifled the endeavor of the plaintiff to during the course of trial of the suit establish the factum probandum aforesaid. Consequently, the learned District Judge in a pedantic besides cursory and mechanical manner precluded the plaintiff from succeeding in his suit for specific performance.

(3.) Further more with the plaintiff impleading the subsequent alienees of the suit property also portrays underlinings qua the subsequent alienations thereof not prima-facie holding legal validation. At this stage primafacie the subsequent alienees when may contest qua the validity of the sale deeds recorded in their favour by defendant No.1 Sangeeta Cheetu by relying upon the factum of theirs being ostensible owners, in concert whereof by the alienees, to validate theirs acquiring title to the suit property upsurgings of the relevant evidence would occur for enabling the learned trial Court to conclude qua the alienation of the suit property initially qua Sangeeta Cheetu by its true owner and subsequently by her to the subsequent alienees standing or not clouded with a vice of complicity occurring inter-se the contesting defendant with the title holder of the suit property whereupon the learned trial Court may or may not conclude of Sangeeta Cheetu by legal maneuvering baulking the plaintiff to obtain a decree for specific performance qua the suit property constituted by hers contemporaneous to the drawing of the contentious agreement to sell, hers making a contrived guise therein of hers holding an authorization to record it with the plaintiff, pretence whereof of the contesting defendant when may stand either falsified or may acquire a virtue of truth yet with the aforesaid endeavor obviously standing thwarted by the learned District Judge rather his under the impugned rendition making a pronouncement analogous to non-suiting the plaintiff has hence committed a patent illegality besides gross impropriety. Preeminently the rendition of the learned trial Court qua the contesting parties maintaining status quo qua the suit property was both just besides expedient given its forestalling the impleadment thereafter of successive alienees of Sangeeta Cheetu also given its thwarting the occurrence thereafter of its alienations. However the impugned rendition has given latitude to the aforesaid obviable occurrence rather has begotten the obviable consequence of the plaintiff standing compelled to implead the subsequent alienees of the suit property whereupon the contest would be rendered both complex besides cumbersome, necessarily it warrants interference.