9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1205 - HC - Indian LawsPossession of suit property - Validity of sale deed - The plaintiffs claim physical and vacant possession of the suit property on the basis of their title. They also claim damages on account of being out of possession of the suit property. - HELD THAT - So far as the plaintiff s application under Order 7 Rule 11 is concerned the logical consequence of the defence/case of the defendant/counter claimant being held as untenable in law would be that the said counter claim would be liable to rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for want of cause of action. The cause of action pleaded by the defendant in the counter claim is the so-called oral agreement and understanding that the plaintiffs shall re-transfer the suit property to the defendant in terms and conditions pleaded by the defendant. The defendant is precluded from pleading such an agreement arrangement or understanding. As already noticed above no other cause of action or basis for the reliefs sought in the counter claim has been disclosed. It is clear that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the defendant to seek the cancellation of the sale deed dated 01.11.2011 registered on 02.12.2011 in respect of the suit property or to seek the execution of a fresh sale deed in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff. No cause of action has arisen to require the plaintiffs to return all the original chain of documents in respect of the suit property to the defendant under any circumstance. In view of the aforesaid discussion both the aforesaid applications of the plaintiffs are allowed. The suit is decreed in respect of the relief of possession in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of counter-claim filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 2. Passing of a decree on admission in the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Counter-Claim Filed by the Defendant: The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership and possession of the suit property based on a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2011. They alleged that despite the execution of the sale deed and payment of the full consideration of Rs. 1.65 Crores, the defendant failed to hand over physical possession of the property. The defendant, in his written statement and counter-claim, contended that the sale deed was executed as security for a loan transaction and not as an actual sale. The defendant sought cancellation of the sale deed and claimed that the plaintiffs should re-transfer the property to him upon repayment of the loan. The court examined Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bar the admission of oral evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of a written document. The sale deed explicitly recorded the transaction as an absolute sale, with the entire consideration paid and possession transferred to the plaintiffs. The court held that the defendant's plea of a loan transaction contradicted the terms of the registered sale deed and was therefore not tenable in law. The court emphasized that any oral agreement or understanding contrary to the written terms of the sale deed could not be accepted. The court also noted that the defendant's claim of fraud was not supported by specific particulars as required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC. The pleadings lacked any assertion that the defendant was unaware of the nature of the document he was executing or that he was coerced or misled into signing the sale deed. The court concluded that the defense set up by the defendant was frivolous and barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the counter-claim was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for not disclosing a cause of action. 2. Passing of a Decree on Admission: The plaintiffs sought a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, arguing that the execution and registration of the sale deed and the receipt of the sale consideration were admitted facts entitling them to possession of the suit property. The court considered whether the admissions made by the defendant were clear and unequivocal. The court found that the defendant had unequivocally admitted the execution and registration of the sale deed and the receipt of Rs. 1.65 Crores as consideration. The court referred to various judgments emphasizing that admissions must be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous to pass a decree on admission. The court held that the defendant's defense, being barred by Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, was not tenable and could be ignored. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' title to the suit property was established based on the registered sale deed, and the only legal consequence was that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession. The court also addressed the issue of whether the plaintiffs' delay in claiming possession affected their title. The court held that the delay did not impact the plaintiffs' title or their right to possession. The court noted that the defendant's plea of a loan transaction involving unaccounted payments was illegal and could not be countenanced by the court. Conclusion: The court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs for possession of the suit property. The counter-claim of the defendant was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for not disclosing a cause of action. The plaintiffs were awarded costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the applications.
|
