Gujarat High Court
Pradeepbhai Bhanabhai Patel & 9 vs Girendrabhai Ramniklal Shah & 5 on 8 May, 2014
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 111 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3304 of 2013
In
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 111 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
PRADEEPBHAI BHANABHAI PATEL & 9....Appellant(s)
Versus
GIRENDRABHAI RAMNIKLAL SHAH & 5....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAV A MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 10
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 6
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Page 1 of 10
C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 08/05/2014
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Harshadray A. Dave waives service of notice of admission for respondent No.1.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prabhav A. Mehta for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Harshadray A. Dave for the respondent No.1.
3. Appellant Nos. 4 to 10 and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are original defendants whereas Respondent No.1 is original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 380 of 2009 before the Civil Court, Surat. They are referred in the same capacity in the present judgment also.
4. Plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance and to restrain the defendants from further alienating the suit property. With such suit, plaintiff has also prayed for interim relief to restrain the defendants from further alienating the suit property in any manner and to create any further charges or lien or to develop the suit property, by application at Exhibit 59 on 17.09.2012. Such application for interim injunction is allowed by impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2013. Thereby, defendant Nos. 13 to 15 are restrained from dealing with the suit property with reference to sale deed dated 22.04.2010 with reference to the suit property with further restrictions from proceeding to convert the suit property for non-agricultural purpose and to develop or Page 2 of 10 C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT construct the same or to enter into any arrangement or agreement to sale so far as suit property is concerned till final disposal of the suit. The details of the suit property are well described in the plaint and in the order itself and at present nature and condition of the suit property is not under challenge and only rights of the parties to deal with the suit property based upon the agreement to sale are under challenge. Therefore details of the suit property is not described herein and it is referred to as suit property only.
5. The sum and substance of the plaintiff's case is to the effect that defendant No.1 has entered into one agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff on 21.08.2008 to sale the suit property for the consideration of Rs.1,56,51,000/- and accepted Rs.21,000/- only towards such transactions. It is further contended by plaintiff that defendant has accepted Rs.10,000/- on 28.08.2008 and Rs.20,000/- on 03.09.2008. It is contended that defendant Nos. 2 to 8 does not have absolute right and title over the suit property however since they were claiming such rights, they are joined as defendants; whereas agreement to sale is executed by respondent No.1 alone. It is further contended by the plaintiff that all such transactions were carried out in presence of land broker being defendant Nos. 11 and 12. However, it is contended that even after such agreement to sale in favour of him, defendant Nos.1 to 7 have tried to sell the suit land to some third party. For the purpose, they have issued public notice in news paper and therefore plaintiff has through his advocate, on 08.10.2008 issued one public notice and defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have never recorded their objections to such public notice. However defendant Nos. 8 to 10 have replied through their advocate on Page 3 of 10 C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT 10.10.2008, though it was contended by such plaintiff that such reply is irrelevant, since there was no privity of contract with defendant Nos. 8 to 10 by the plaintiff. It is further contended that before plaintiff initiated any action, defendant No.1 has issued one public notice on 14.09.2009 but when plaintiff has failed to record his objections against such public notice, it is contended that even in absence of such public notice when nobody has objected public notice dated 10.10.2008 by the plaintiff then plaintiff has got prima facie case. Thereupon, it is alleged that now price of land has gone high, hence defendants have change their mind and did not get N.A. Permission and did not get permission to sell the property in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff has again issued public notice to public at large, not to enter into sale transactions with defendant No.1. So far as possession of the suit property is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiff that though possession was with defendant Nos. 1 to 7, if at all it is believed that suit property was in possession of defendant Nos. 1 to 10 then such possession was illegal and prayed to getting possession of the suit property from defendant. While praying for specific performance of such agreement to sale dated 21.08.2012 plaintiff has also contended that now price of the land has been increased and it would be almost Rs. 3 Crores and therefore if at all specific performance of agreement is not directed, he should be paid compensation of Rs.1,43,49,000/- plus Rs.66,500/- paid by him with 18% interest. It seems that pending trial petitioner has came to know about sale transactions of the suit property in favour of the defendant Nos. 13 to 15 vide registered sale deed dated 22.04.2010 and therefore plaintiff has amended the plaint with certain prayers for declaration of sale deed in Page 4 of 10 C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT favour of defendant Nos. 13 to 15 as null and void. While amending the plaint, the plaintiff has came forward with some more fact that in addition to public notice dated 08.10.2008 and 14.09.2009 referred herein above, plaintiff has also conveyed the Sub - Registrar of Surat (Navagam) to record lis pendent and vide Sr. No. 14288 it was recorded and on 25.11.2009 it was also endorsed for the revenue record. It is further contended that such sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 13 to 15 is shame in nature as far as price of Rs.1,56,51,000/- it is sold in favour of defendant Nos. 13 to 15 only at thrown away price of Rs.4,35,000/- and therefore even common man can understand that such sale deed is executed only with a view to disturb the rights of the plaintiff. It is also contended that when defendant No.8 has signed such sale deed as a witness then it becomes clear that all the defendants have acted in collusion with each other.
6. On perusal of agreement to sale in question which produced at Mark 3/1 before the trial Court it becomes clear that defendant No.1 alone has executed such agreement to sell and agreed to sell the suit properties at total price of Rs.1,56,51,000/- against accepting Rs.21,000/- only. It is also declared that the land is of old tenure land and it is free from all encumbrance. It is also disclosed in agreement to sale that purchaser i.e. plaintiff is not an agriculturist and therefore it is to be converted for non - agricultural purpose at the cost of the purchaser. Below such writing as agreement to sale on plain paper, a stamp paper of Rs.50/- is attached without signature of anyone. There are several endorsement on plain paper to the effect that defendant No.11 Parimal B. Nayak has accepted Rs.10,000/- on 28.08.2008, Rs.20,000/- on Page 5 of 10 C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT 03.09.2008 and Rs.10,000/- for which the date is not mentioned and thereby total Rs.61,000/- for and on behalf of defendant No.1. Such agreement to sale is dated 21.08.2008. All the payment is made in the year 2008 only but with such writing, stamp paper purchased on 13.09.2007 is then attached. Thereby it is clear that when writing was executed on 21.08.2008 it was only on plain paper and even below such writing receipt of further payment is not by the executor namely Ramniklal but defendant No.11 has endorsed on behalf of defendant No.1. It is thereby clear that to make such writing in the form of agreement to sell a stamp paper of Rs.50/- is attached to such writing. However, in view of such, such writing cannot be termed as agreement to sale when it is also unregistered.
7. As against that registered sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 13 to 15 is executed by all the owners of the land i.e. defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 22.04.2010. Therefore, at present prima facie evidence is practically but in favour of plaintiff and not in favour of the defendants.
8. If we perused the impugned order, the trial Court has after narrating factual details raised standard question for consideration regarding prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is admitted position that initially by an order dated 05.10.2011 the application at Exhibit 5 by the plaintiff has been dismissed. However, when that order was challenged in Appeal from Order No.475 of 2011, this High Court has directed the trial Court to decide such application within period of 4 weeks without fail. By such order dated 30.11.2012 defendant Nos. 1 to 7 were directed Page 6 of 10 C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT to deposit Rs.30,000/- and trial Court has to decide both the applications at Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 59, afresh since Exhibit 59 was filed after order passed below Exhibit 5 on 30.11.2012. It seems that after such direction impugned order was passed and now Exhibit 59 was allowed against defendant Nos. 13 to 15. If Exhibit against defendant Nos. 1 to 12 is already dismissed then there is no reason in allowing Exhibit 59 against defendant Nos. 13 to 15. More particularly when prima facie agreement to sale is not and proper documents at all and when defendant Nos. 13 to 15 are bona fide purchaser of the value.
8.1 In the impugned order it has been observed that in Appeal from Order No. 475 of 2011, the High Court has directed the plaintiff to deposit remaining amount of Rs.1,55,84,500/-. However, thereafter there is no clarity on record about the compliance of such order. However, unfortunately though in para 11 of the impugned order the trial Court has observed that plaintiff has not complied with the above order to deposit the amount, when defendants are relied upon such directions unfortunately the trial Court has considered it as admission on the part of the defendants. Moreover, the trial Court has emphasized on non-discloser of sale in favour of defendant Nos. 13 to 15 by plaintiff Nos. 1 to 7 while deciding Exhibit 5 since sale deed was registered on 22.04.2010 i.e. before the decision of Exhibit 5 on 05.10.2011. The trial Court has also relied upon endorsement of lis pendant by the plaintiff.
8.2 The trial Court has also recorded that when defendant No.1 has not denied the receipt of consideration and when it Page 7 of 10 C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT is narrated in the agreement to sale with the defendants, that defendants will co-operate to the plaintiffs in proceedings regarding non-agricultural permission, there is no reason to believe that defendant has full knowledge that purchaser is not agriculturist and therefore do not believe the arguments by the plaintiff that the agricultural land cannot be sold to him. It is further observed that sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 13 to 15 without prior permission to the Court is illegal. Suffice to say that none of such ground is in favour of the plaintiff and trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled legal position that suit property being agricultural land cannot be sold to non-agriculturist and that agreement to sale does not give any confidence since it is not executed in accordance with law.
9. Though trial Court has disclosed all citations referred by the plaintiff it fails to disclose citations referred by the defendant and simply observed that citations are different and are not applicable to the case. Thereby practically trial Court has committed an error. Impugned order is perverse and needs to be interfered since it is restraining the defendants to utilize their property though they are bona fide purchaser of the value. There is nothing in law which prevent the defendant to utilize their property during the pendency of the suit. So far as principle of lis pendent is concerned it would certainly applicable but subject to prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. If principle of lis pendent is to be applied blindly then irrespective of the legal right of the plaintiff if any litigation is preferred by some one then all such property would be struck for no valid reason. In any case, both for registration of sale deed and for interim order as well as for Page 8 of 10 C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT specific performance, the basic requirement is quite natural and clear that there must be a proper document in favour of the plaintiffs which binds the defendants from dealing with the suit property in any manner after execution of such agreement to sale.
10. Though it may be argued that specific performance can be allowed for un-registered documents and even for part of the property, it cannot be ignored that in both such cases agreement to sale is signed by the real owner. Therefore when agreement to sale is not genuine, then irrespective of legal right of plaintiff to get execution of sale deed in part against its execution against concern coparcener and even in absence of registration, when agreement to sale itself is not proper and when it is not signed by all the owners or for all the owners by their power of attorney holder, then such agreement to sale cannot be treated as valid document so as to allow the relief which is otherwise required to be allowed only if prima facie evidence is available. The documents in question cannot be considered as a prima facie evidence at all. However, when there is huge difference of price of land shown in agreement to sale and sale deed though a question may be raised about the sale transactions, the fact remains that when Court has directed the plaintiff to deposit the amount so as to show his bona fide to purchase the land, the plaintiff has failed to deposit such amount. Now, in couple of years when price of the land has been increased, even if plaintiff is agreed to deposit the amount as per previous order, it would not entitle the plaintiff to have discretionary order in his favour. Moreover, the decree to specific performance otherwise also a discretionary one and thereby even if plaintiff is entitled to such decree, Court may not grant Page 9 of 10 C/AO/111/2013 CAV JUDGMENT such decree considering overall facts and circumstances and therefore there is no reason to grant interim relief when plaintiff has claimed compensation in absence of decree for specific performance.
10.1 Therefore appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) drashti Page 10 of 10