Navneet Karnwal vs Dinesh Kothari & Another

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that an unregistered agreement to sell dated 2.6.2012 was executed between the co-owner of the property Jasveer Singh (defendant no. 2) and the prospective purchaser of the same Navneet Karnwal (plaintiff in Original Suit No. 84/2012). Pursuant to such agreement, out of the total sale consideration of rupees one crore thirty five lakhs, rupees forty five lakhs are said to have been given to Jasveer Singh by the said purchaser, wherefor no receipt was ever issued by Mr. Singh to Mr. Karnwal. Needless to say that this amount is said to be given by Mr. Karnwal to Mr. Singh unaccounted.

It was agreed between the parties that on payment of rest of the consideration, such sale deed shall be executed up to 1.9.2012.

It was also stated in the enclosed affidavit of such agreement, deposed on the same date, that part possession of such property was handed over to the purchaser. It can also be mentioned that this property was jointly owned by Jasveer Singh and his wife Smt. Parvinder Kaur. Such property was also mortgaged/under encumbrance with

some bank by Jasveer Singh and his wife. All the same, Jasveer Singh allegedly received the said amount of consideration from Navneet Karnwal. Later on Jasveer Singh executed a power of attorney in favour of Dinesh Kothari to deal with such property, who began interfering in the possession of Navneet Karnwal. So, there arose the need to institute the suit, as mentioned above, seeking injunction against Jasveer Singh and Dinesh Kothari.

It is alleged that property is jointly owned by Jasveer Singh and his wife. Their names are also been shown in the Nagarpalika assessment, which is available in the lower court record.

The Court below refused to grant any injunction in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the agreement to sell was unregistered and it does not create any right under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908.

True, that any such document, which proposes to create the title or right on the immovable property, is required to be registered. But at the same time, no Court can remain in oblivion of the fact what is pervading in the society all around, and the facts of this case are not any exception of such practice between the seller and the prospective purchaser.

So, in the interest of justice, it is the bounden duty of the Court to protect the prospective purchaser from such seller who plays every deceit and does not remain fair while making such transaction with the purchaser. So, I think that the injunction application should be allowed. It is allowed accordingly. Both the respondents defendants are hereby restrained from interfering with the possession of Navneet Karnwal. They are further restrained from creating any third party interest or encumbrance over the disputed property in any manner, whatsoever.

It is hereby made clear that since the property under the suit is already under encumbrance, created by Jasveer Singh and his wife with some bank, hence, if the bank concerned initiates any proceeding to recover its amount from Jasveer Singh and his wife, then this order will not come in the way. However, it shall remain open for Navneet Karnwal to take any other suitable recourse of the process of law against Jasveer Singh if so advised.

The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Interim relief application (CLMA 5055/2016) also stands disposed of.

Let the LCR be sent back.