Allahabad High Court
Nimmi Infratech Private Limited ... vs Fundan And 9 Others on 23 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11437 Reserved on 07.01.2025. Delivered on 23.01.2025. A.F.R. Court No. - 36 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 844 of 2024 Appellant :- Nimmi Infratech Private Limited (Previously Satya Homes Private Limited) Respondent :- Fundan And 9 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nisheeth Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Mehrotra,Srijan Mehrotra,Yash Tandon Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
ANALYSIS OF BAR OF SUIT INVOKING U.P. REVENUE CODE, 2006 VIS-A-VIS REJECTION OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 C.P.C.
THE APPEAL
1. The instant appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') assails validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2024 and decree dated 20.08.2024 based thereupon, whereby the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar has allowed an application 20-क filed by the defendant-respondent No.6 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and rejected the plaint of Original Suit No.828 of 2024 (Nimmi Infratech Pvt. Limited vs. Fundan and others). The order impugned amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) C.P.C., hence this regular appeal.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The aforesaid suit was filed with the averments that Satya Homes Private Limited being a private limited company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, was subsequently nomenclatured as Nimmi Infratech Private Limited. Defendants No.1 to 4 were alleged to be owners of the property in dispute with an averment that their names were recorded in the revenue records and that they had entered into an agreement for sale dated 02.05.2014 with the plaintiff-Company and out of the total proposed sale consideration of Rs.15,21,37,274/-, a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- was paid by the Company; the agreement was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar concerned; possession of the property was delivered to the appellant as per the agreement itself; stamp duty amounting to Rs.76,12,100/- was paid on the entire sale consideration; a sale deed dated 14.12.2015 was executed by the executant Mehar Chand in favour of the plaintiff-Company in respect of part of land covered by gata No.795 and a sum of Rs.29,23,700/- was paid in relation to the agreement for sale which was adjusted towards sale consideration and remaining amount was paid to the defendants No.1 to 4. Further averments were made regarding another sale deed dated 20.06.2015 executed in respect of some part of gata No.793 and adjustment of money paid with reference to agreement for sale.
3. The cause of action giving rise to the suit was alleged on account of the fact that the defendants No.1 to 4, instead of executing sale deed in furtherance of the agreement for sale in respect of remaining part of the land, executed six sale deeds in favour of other defendants and though a suit being Original Suit No.1183 of 2023 (Satya Homes Private Limited vs. Fundan and others) was previously filed in the court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar claiming a decree of specific performance of the agreement and, in which, a temporary injunction order dated 10.10.2023 was passed, the sale deeds were executed in violation thereof. Terming the sale deeds as void and adversely affecting the rights of the plaintiff for multiple reasons, decree was claimed to the effect that sale deeds be declared as illegal, forged, fabricated and void documents and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff-Company and such endorsement be made in the records of the Sub-Registrar concerned. A further decree for injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the property based upon the void sale deeds was also claimed with a further relief of damages to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- per month.
4. The trial court, on 21.05.2024, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order directing the parties to maintain status quo and issued notices to the defendants. The injunction order was extended from time to time and, later on, an application 20-क was filed by defendant No.6 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint. Pursuant to an order dated 02.07.2024 passed by this Court in Matter Under Article 227 No.7743 of 2024 (M/s Aahaan Infrastructure v. Nimmi Infratech Private Limited and 9 others), whereby the trial court was directed to make all endeavours to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the trial court took up the said application for consideration and has rejected the same by the order impugned.
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 C.P.C.
5. The application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. raised the ground for rejection of the plaint as valuation of the suit on thirty times of land revenue as is done in case of agricultural land; pendency of previous suit being Original Suit No.1183 of 2023 raising a bar under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. and non-payment of adequate Court fees though the land had been declared as "non-agricultural" under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), as per the recitals contained in the sale deeds under challenge.
ORDER REJECTING PLAINT
6. The trial court has rejected the plaint by referring to Sections 144 and 206 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 2006') read with Section 9 C.P.C. and held that since the plaintiff has valued the suit on land revenue payable qua agricultural land and a declaratory decree has been claimed, in view of the bar contained under Section 206 of the Code of 2006, the suit is barred.
LEARNED COUNSEL HEARD
7. I have heard Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Anand Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant; Shri Yash Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel assisted by Shri Ashwani Kumar Patel and Shri Srijan Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent No.6. The record of the trial court has already been received and the appeal has been admitted on earlier occasion.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
8. Following point for determination arises for consideration in this appeal and is framed under Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C.:-
"Whether rejection of plaint by invoking bar of civil court with reference to provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is justified?"
ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANTS
9. Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel submits that since jurisdiction to declare sale deeds as null and void vests only with civil court and revenue court has no jurisdiction to grant such a decree, rejection of plaint is perse illegal. Elaborating his submissions, it is urged that suit for adjudging registered sale deeds as null and void does not fall under under any clause or cub-clause or entry of Schedules II and III referable to Section 206 of the Code of 2006 and no declaration of rights as 'bhumidhar' or 'asami' having been claimed by the plaintiff, neither Section 206 nor Section 144 of the Code of 2006 has any application and, hence, gross error has been committed by the trial court. It is also urged that since the defendant No.6, in his application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. itself, alleged that the land mentioned in the disputed sale deeds has already been declared as "non-agricultural" under Section 143 of the Act of 1950, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the plaint merely on the ground that suit has been valued or Court fees has been paid as per the provisions applicable for agricultural land. Submission is that issue of wrongful valuation of suit or deficient court fees may become subject matter of trial later on but the same, in itself, could not become a ground for rejecting the plaint at its threshold.
10. Another argument advanced is based upon Section 4(14) of the Code of 2006 which contains definition of "land" and it is urged that since as per the defendant-respondent No.6 itself, the land is not held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, it goes beyond the purview of Code of 2006 and, hence, no provision of the Code could have been invoked to reject the plaint.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that for considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., only averments contained in the plaint can be seen and since the plaint does not disclose the nature of land as non-agricultural, rather the plaintiff itself has valued the suit on the principles applicable for valuation of agricultural land, mere statement contained in application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. regarding declaration of land as non-agricultural under Section 143 of the Act of 1950 would be irrelevant. It is further urged that a statement contained in an application cannot be deemed to be an admission on the part of the defendants so as to adjudge the maintainability of the suit while considering the application. As regards jurisdiction of civil court to grant the decree as claimed in the suit, it is urged that admittedly, the plaintiff is not the owner or bhumidhar of the land and, even if, the sale deeds are cancelled, the same would not confer ownership or bhumidhari rights qua the land upon the plaintiff and, therefore, for obtaining a declaration in its favour, if any, the plaintiff should approach revenue court as per Section 144 of the Act of 1950 and, hence, in view of entries contained in III Schedule read with Section 206 (2)(b) and those contained in II Schedule of the Code of 2006, only the revenue court would have jurisdiction; the jurisdiction of civil court would be barred and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any error. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following authorities:-
(i). Shri Ram and others v. Ist A.D.J. & others, A.I.R. 2001 SC 1250;
(ii). Kamla Prasad & others v. Kishna Kant Pathak & others, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 213;
(iii). Jai Prakash Singh v. Bachchu Lal and others, 2019 S.C.C. Online All 3522;
(iv). Pyare Lal v. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through natural guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and others, (2019) 3 SCC 692;
(v). Bansraj & others v. Moti and others, 2019 S.C.C. Online All 4238;
(vi). Sarla Pal and others v. Addl. District Judge, Court No.6, Kanpur Dehat and others, (2019) 144 RD 751;
(vii). Vijay Pal and others v. Rajendra Kumar, 2021 (4) A.D.J. 182;
(viii). Shree Surya Developers and Promoters v. N. Sailesh Prasad & others, (2022) 5 S.C.C. 736;
(ix). Smt. Kushma Devi v. Darshan Singh and 4 others; 2024 (4) ADJ 247;
(x). Bhagwati Devi v. Radhey Shyam and others, 1976 (2) A.L.R. 702;
(xi). Narendra Kumar Mittal & others v. Nupur Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 20 S.C.C. 158;
(xii). Mangoo Singh & others v. Ram Autar, 2024 (9) ADJ 351."
ANALYSIS OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the plaint has been rejected by invoking sub-rule (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII, i.e., the bar of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in this case and, therefore, it thinks it proper to first refer provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. which reads as under:-
"Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
11. Rejection of plaint.-The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
...........................
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;"
13. It is known to everyone that C.P.C. was drastically amended by Act No. 46 of 1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002. One of the amendments was made in Rule 14 of Order VII which is in relation to documents relied on in plaint. The Rule is quoted hereunder:-
"Order VII Rule 14 Documents relied on in plaint
14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
14. The amended provisions of Rule 14, therefore, caste an obligation upon plaintiff to enter documents in a list and produce the same when the plaint is presented when he sues or relies upon such documents that are in his possession or power in support of his claim. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 creates a bar against subsequent production of such documents and provides that the same shall not be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit without leave of the Court. In view of the amended provisions, the intention of legislature becomes crystal clear that the statement contained in the plaint has to be read with the documents produced alongwith the plaint and pleadings cannot be segregated with the documents filed alongwith the plaint. Similar view has been taken by Division Bench of this Court in Prem Kumar Rastogi v. M/s. On-UP Automobiles Pvt. Limited and others, 2019 (3) A.D.J. 491 (DB) (LB). Relevant extract from the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"...................
23. The above quoted provision i.e. Rule 11 relates to rejection of plaint on certain grounds mentioned therein and Rule 14 relates to production of documents by the plaintiff on which plaintiff sues or relies. A perusal of the Rule 14 would show that if a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in that event he shall produce the said documents in Court when the plaint is presented. In other words, the plaintiff is under obligation to file the basis of the suit/document on which the plaint is based at the time of filing of the suit or presenting the plaint.
24. Needless to say that both the provisions are part and parcel of Order 7. Rule 10 of Order 7 authorises the Court to return the plaint for want of jurisdiction for presenting the same in competent court of jurisdiction.
25. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that the Court is empowered to consider the documents filed under Order 7 Rule 14, being filed in support of allegations/averments made in the plaint as basis of suit/plaint, at the time of dealing with the application moved either under Rule 10 or Under Rule 11 of the CPC. "
15. In the instant case, the documents produced at the time of presentation of plaint are not the photo-stat copies thereof but fall in the category of either primary or secondary evidence and it is apparent from record that certified copes of disputed sale deeds were not only entered into a list of documents by the plaintiffs but the same were filed in support of its claim. What would be the fate of these documents or their effect on trial or ultimate decision to be taken in the suit is altogether different, however, as observed above, when a Court proceeds to consider an application under VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the documents filed alongwith the plaint cannot be ignored, rather, they would be read alongwith statements made in the plaint.
16. Therefore, in order to ascertain as to whether the suit giving rise to this appeal is barred by the provisions of Code of 2006, when the statement contained in the plaint is read with the recitals contained in the registered sale deeds challenged by way of suit, it is found that all the sale deeds disclosed purpose of sale/purchase as "residential" and the stamp duty had been paid on the circle rates applicable for residential properties. Apart from this, the agreement for sale dated 02.05.2014 also describes that stamp duty was paid on circle rates applicable for residential properties. It is nowhere provided in any of the documents that the land in dispute is agricultural in nature. Further the list of documents filed by the plaintiff included revneue records relating to the property in question which contained reference of declaration made by the Competent Authority under Section 143 of Act of 1950 declaring the property as "non-agricultural".
17. When the aforesaid documents are analysed in the light of arguments of Shri C.B. Yadav based upon definition of "land" contained in the Code of 2006, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the same alongwith some other provisions. Relevant provisions of Code of 2006 are extracted as under:-
"4(12). 'holding' means a parcel of lands held under one tenure or one lease, engagement or grant;
4(14). 'land', except in Chapters VII and VIII and Sections 80, 81 and Section 136, means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture;
144. Declaratory suits by tenure-holders.- (1) Any person claiming to be a Bhumidhar or asami of any holding or part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person, may sue for a declaration of his rights in such holding or part.
(2) In every suit under sub-section (1) instituted by or on behalf of:-
(a) a Bhumidhar, the State and the Gram Panchayat shall be necessary parties;
(b) an asami, the land-holder shall be a necessary party.
206. Jurisdiction of Civil Court and Revenue Courts.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of this Code, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit, application or proceeding to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, any revenue court or revenue officer is, by or under this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), and save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Code-
(a) no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the matters specified in the Second Schedule; and
(b) no Court other than the revenue court or the revenue officer specified in [Column 3] of the Third Schedule shall entertain any suit, application or proceeding specified in [Column 2] thereof.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, an objection that a court or officer mentioned in sub-section (2)(b) had or had no jurisdiction with respect to any suit, application or proceedings, shall not be entertained by any appellate, revisional or executing court, unless the objection was taken before the court or officer of the first instance, at the earliest opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice."
18. As far as Schedules II and III corresponding to Section 206 of the Code of 2006, as considered by the trial court in the impugned order are concerned, the Court need not quote or reproduce the same as it would be a futile depiction for the simple reason that the provisions of Section 206 read with the associated Schedules could have been relevant only when the lis is regarding "land" or "holding" respectively defined under sections 4(14) and 4(12) of the Code of 2006 and not in respect of the land or holding which goes out of purview of the Code on account of its very nature, as reflected from the plaint and/or associated documents. Since the trial court has invoked bar of section 206 and has held that plaintiff-appellant should claim a declaration under section 144 of the Code 2006, it is to observe that section 144 applies when any person claiming himself to be a 'bhumidhari' or 'asami' of any holding or part thereof sues for a declaration of his rights in such holding or part thereof. 'Holding', as per Section 4(12) of the Code, has been defined as a "parcel of lands" held under one tenure or one lease, engagement or grant. 'Land', as per section 4(14), means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture.
19. As noted above, since the land in dispute is not held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, it cannot be said to be a "holding" and, hence, the provisions of Section 144 would not apply. They would not apply also for the reason that the plaintiff has not come up with a claim as 'bhumidhar' or 'asami' of land but has raised a grievance before the civil court arising out of execution of sale deeds to the detriment of its interest in defiance of a claim based upon registered agreement for sale dated 02.05.2014 and some sale deeds in furtherance thereto in its favour and non-execution of sale deed of remaining land in its favour but in favour of third parties.
20. It is also significant to observe that both plaintiff-appellant and contesting defendant-respondent No.6 are construction/infrastructure companies and, during the course of arguments in this appeal on all occasions, both sides raised allegations against each other regarding raising of constructions on the spot by the transferees. This also reflects that the land is neither held nor occupied for the purposes connected with agriculture and even the sale deeds are meant for raising residential constructions.
21. The Court does not want to enter into a detailed discussion based upon the authorities cited as regards power of civil court to grant a decree for cancellation or adjudging the written instrument as null and void in a case when the person seeking such adjudication is not a recorded tenure-holder. This is so because, in the facts of this case, once it is found that the land in dispute covered by the agreement for sale or the disputed sale deeds under challenge has gone beyond the definition of "land" or "holding", no provision of Code of 2006 would apply and, in that event, only civil court would have jurisdiction to grant decree as prayed for.
22. As far as the alleged wrongful valuation of the suit is concerned, it is always open for the trial court to frame issues as regards proper valuation and payment of Court fees and, in that event, appropriate order can be passed but, at this stage of proceedings, mere statement based upon valuation of the suit on thirty times of land revenue could not create a bar of provisions of Code of 2006 so as to warrant rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C.
23. Although Shri Yadav submits that there was an injunction order operative when the plaint was rejected and, therefore, if the Court allows the appeal and revives the plaint, it should also revive the injunction order, this Court is not in a position to accept this submission for the reason that prior to the institution of the suit in question, admittedly, another suit being Original Suit No.1183 of 2023 was filed by the plaintiff, in which, a conditional interim order with reference to record of rights qua the land in dispute was passed on 10.10.2023 and reference thereof is contained in the plaint of the subsequent suit also. Even ex-parte ad-interim injunction order passed in subsequent suit giving rise to this appeal is also conditional on the same lines. Hence, though the Court is satisfied that rejection of plaint is illegal, it does not find any good ground to revive the injunction order as any observation made by this court in that regard may nullify/modify the injunction order(s) passed in two suits and that would be beyond the scope of this appeal.
CONCLUSION
24. In view of the above, the solitary point for determination is answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant holding that rejection of plaint invoking bar of the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was not lawful and the trial court has grossly erred in passing the order impugned.
25. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.
26. The judgment, order and decree detailed in 1st paragraph of this judgment are set aside. The plaint of Original Suit No. 828 of 2024 stands revived for all purposes.
27. Office is directed to forthwith remit the trial court's record to the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar.
Order Date:-23.01.2025 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J.)