THE GENUINENESS, VALIDITY AND BINDING NATURE OF DOCUMENT Will HAVE TO BE ADJUDICATED AT THE APPROPRIATE STAGE AFTER THE PARTIES ADDUCE ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – THE HIGH COURT Of PATNA
Title- Musmat Shanti Devi & ors Vs Lallu ram & ors
Decided on- 24/11/2023
+C.R No.31/2023
CORAM- HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUNIL DUTTA
INTRODUCTION
The civil rivision has been filed against the order passed in Title suit No.15/2016 by the learned sub-Judge Jagdishpur,Bhojpur by which petition filed under order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C has been rejected.Whereas The Hon’ble court reject the appeal
FACTS
As per the fact the title suit was filed by the opposite party against the petitioner for a relief for specific performance of contract with other relief on the basis of deed of contract for sale on non- Judicial stam paper.Where petitioner 1 and petitioner 2 filed a joint written statement challenging the suit on various grounds denied the claim of the opposite party and states that the deed of contract are false and fabricated and not executed by them and no claim shall be made on the basis of unregistered contract for sale were the petitioner filed petition under order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the c.p.c for the rejection of the plaint in view of section 17(1A) of the Registration act 1908.Accordingly suit based on unregistered agreement to sell is liable to be rejected under order rule 11c.p.c and in such circumstances ni cause of action arose for filing the said and said application has been rejected by the learned trial court vide the impugned order.The learned council for petitioner states that the alleged deed of contract for sale and affidavit of receipt of money are false and fabricated and no claim can be made for unregistered contract and I’d liable to reject under order 7 Rule 11 of cpc and the impugned order is illigal, improper and against the provisions of section 17(1A) of the Registration act,1908 and is liable to set aside.Whereas The Learned council for opposite party states that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the petition of the petitioner vide the impunged order which requires no interference by this court as there is no jurisdiction error or illegality in the impunged order and also he states that even the unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of the contract in suit for specific performance.
THE COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISIONÂ
As per the Hon’ble court after hearing both the learned council analysis and observe that even where the sale agreement Is not registered the document can be received as evidence for considering the relief of specific performance and the inadmissibility will confine itself only to the protection sought for under section 53-A of the Transfer of property act.As in the present case if the statements in the plaint are taken to be true then cannot be said that it does not disclose a cause of action and the plaint shall be rejected.This is a matter of trial and depends upon the evidence of the plaintiff.Insofar as the application under order 7 Rule 11 of cpc is concerned the court will proceed only that far to examine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and ni further.The Genuineness, validity and binding nature of document will have to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage after the parties adduce oral and documentary evidence.As per above facts and circumstances the court does not find any valid ground for interference in the impunged order of the trail court the civil revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.The civil rivision is accordingly dismissed.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
Written by -Prachee Novo Mukherjee
