Manohar Lal vs Jamni And Ors

Matter comes up on an application under Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of appellant for seeking permission to sale the disputed suit property, thereby craving modification in order dated 10th of August, 2018.

At the threshold, on 17th of May, 2018, while admitting the appeal, Court stayed effect and operation of impugned judgment and decree dated 7th of May, 2018. Subsequently, on 10th of August, 2018, the said order was modified and the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and title of the suit property.

During the course of hearing on the application of appellant, learned counsel for the parties agreed for hearing the main appeal itself as the lis involved therein lies in a very narrow compass. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that record of the trial Court has already been requisitioned, matter is heard finally at this stage.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that first respondent-plaintiff Jamni filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 18th of August, 2009 executed by her on 19th of August, 2009 in favour of respondent No.2 and subsequent sale-deed dated 16th of November, 2009 by respondent No.2 Radheyshyam in favour of appellant Manoharlal. As per version of the respondent-plaintiff, parties negotiated for sale transaction of eight plots, which were part of Khasra No.992 admeasuring 0.6300 hectare and Khasra No.993 admeasuring 0.3100 hectare, and accordingly consideration amount for eight plots was paid. It is further averred that at the time of registration of sale-deeds, appellant and second respondent deceitfully got registered from her sale-deeds for two more plots without paying consideration amount therefor and she being unaware about it executed the same. The precise allegation of the respondent-plaintiff is that in fact no consideration amount was paid for two plots and, therefore, the sale transaction of the additional two plots is void as per Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In the plaint, it is pleaded that the sale-deeds pertaining to those two plots was not executed voluntarily by the respondent-plaintiff and same was an outcome of fraud practiced by appellant and second respondent.

The suit is contested by appellant by filing written statement denying all the allegations. On behalf of second respondent, none appeared before the learned trial Court, and therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, settled three issues for determination. Subsequently, Issue No.1 was amended and reframed on 23rd of April, 2018.

The rival parties tendered their evidence, and on behalf of respondent-plaintiff she herself appeared in the witness box besides examining her husband PW2 Ratanlal. That apart, 14 documents were produced, which were exhibited. In counter, appellant himself appeared in the witness-box and also examined three other witnesses but no documentary evidence was tendered. The learned trial Court, after hearing final arguments, decided all the issues in favour of respondent-plaintiff and relying on the same cancelled sale-deeds dated 19.08.2009 and 16.11.2009 and further granted injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff.

As the lis involved in the appeal is confined to non-payment of consideration amount, after due deliberations, rival parties have agreed to settle the matter perpetually in the spirit of Lok Adalat. The rival parties, upon negotiations, settled consideration amount for two plots in question to the tune of Rs.10 Lakhs. In terms of the compromise, learned counsel for the appellant has handed over Demand Draft No.602947 dated 27th of February, 2019 amounting to Rs.10 Lakhs of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Branch Chittaurgarh to learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff in Court today. While acknowledging the same, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-plaintiff has very frankly submitted that in view of receipt of requisite amount, now grievance of the respondent-plaintiff stands redressed and she has no objection if the impugned judgment and decree is annulled by this Court.

In view of the fact that rival parties have mutually sorted out their dispute in the spirit of Lok Adalat and respondent-plaintiff has received consideration amount pertaining to the disputed sale transactions/sale-deeds, undoubtedly, her grievance has been redressed perpetually, Therefore, in the wake of settlement between rival parties, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the instant first appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is set aside.

Let record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.