MUSMAT SHANTI DEVI Vs. LALLU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocates for the parties.

(2.) This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dtd. 5/12/2017 passed in Title Suit No.15 of 2016 by learned Sub-Judge, Jagdishpur, Bhojpur by which petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. has been rejected.

(3.) Petitioners herein are defendant nos.1 and 2 in the Title Suit No.15 of 2016 filed by opposite party no.1 (plaintiff) for a relief for specific performance of contract with other reliefs on the basis of deed of contract for sale/Mahadanama dtd. 11/5/2014 on Non-Judicial stamp paper. It is stated that petitioner/defendant no.1 Shanti Devi has taken Rs.37.00 lacs and executed affidavit of receipt dtd. 5/11/2014 before Notary Public on which petitioner/defendant no.2 Manoj Pandey is a witness and given possession on the said land with assurance to execute registered sale deed. The petitioners came to know that defendant no.1 got permission from Consolidation Officer in this regard then she told that she has sold the land to defendant no.2 Manoj Pandey. The said amount has not been returned by the defendant no.1 nor executed the sale deed, hence the plaintiff filed the said suit. Petitioners/defendant nos.1 and 2 filed joint written statement challenging the suit on various grounds, denied the claim of the plaintiff and stated that the said deed of contract/Mahadanama are false and fabricated and not executed by petitioner/defendant no.1 and she never accepted any amount from the plaintiff and no claim shall be made on the basis of an unregistered contract for sale. The petitioners filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the C.P.C. on 25/6/2016 for rejection of the plaint in view of Sec. 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 which provides mandatory registration of document containing contract to transfer of immovable property for consideration. Accordingly, suit based on such unregistered agreement to sell is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and in such circumstances no cause of action arose for filing the suit. The said application has been dismissed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order.