Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

60. It is amply clear that since no issue has been framed for adjudicating the validity of the sale deed executed in the year 2000 in favor of the defendant, the sale deed could not have been declared as void by the learned trial court. Thus, without framing an issue, the trial court acted with manifest illegality in declaring the sale deed dated September 23, 2000, with respect to Plot No. 33 & 34, as void.

61. After reviewing the trial court's judgment and the discussion therein, this Court finds that its findings on this issue appear contradictory. Although the court acknowledged that no plotting existed on the ground and that the Plaintiff failed to prove the specific demarcation of Plot Nos. 1, 13, 14 & 15 over Plot Nos. 33, 34, 37 & 38, it nevertheless proceeded to declare the Defendants' sale deed partially void based on an assumed overlap. Given the absence of identifiable plots and the Plaintiff's failure to establish clear prior possession of a demarcated area, the basis for partially invalidating the Defendants' sale deed becomes questionable. The evidence from P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 regarding the non-demarcation of plots directly undermines the premise of an overlapping area.

83. In Anathula Sudhakar (supra) reiterated that if the plaintiff has failed to prove possession over the plots in question, they cannot seek relief of injunction simpliciter without claiming the relief of possession. Furthermore, if the plaintiff's title is under cloud and dispute, and the plaintiff is not in possession nor has been able to establish possession, a suit without the relief of possession is not maintainable.

84. Learned counsel for the Defendants-Respondents also challenged the maintainability of the suit by contending that LIC/Plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction and a declaration that certain sale deeds were void without seeking the consequential relief of possession. This, they argued, renders the suit barred by Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issue 2: The Defendants contended that once it was established that plots were not carved out, the basis for declaring any part of the sale deed void was lost.

Issue 3: They asserted that the trial court wrongly decided the matter of possession in favor of the Plaintiff, given the clear admissions by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 that the Defendants were in actual physical possession.

Issue 6: The Defendants argued that the trial court erred in granting a permanent injunction and in asserting that the civil court had jurisdiction. They maintained that since the land is agricultural and the Defendants' names appear in the revenue records, the suit for declaration of title should have been filed in the Revenue Court under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, thereby barring the civil court's jurisdiction under Section 331.

103. In light of all the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside so far as it declares the sale deed as void and suit to be maintainable. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 45 of 2007 is allowed. The judgment and decree dated November 21, 2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Aligarh, in Suit Nos. 1210/2004 and 1211/2004, are hereby set aside to that extent. It is held that the sale deed dated September 23, 2000, executed by M/s Bharat Stores Ltd. in favor of Defendants Nos. 6, 7, and 8, is valid and binding. The claim by LIC to 550 square yards of land over plot no. 33 & 34 and 1800 Sq Yards of land over plot no 37 & 38 are dismissed as unproven. Accordingly, First Appeals No. 70 & 71 of 2007 are dismissed. Cross-Objection No. 128636 of 2007, filed by defendants-Respondents in First Appeal No. 70 of 2007, is likewise disposed of in view of the findings stated above. No order as to costs is passed, and all pending applications, if any, are hereby disposed of.