Supreme Court of India
BALRAM SINGH versus KELO DEVI on 23 September 2022
226
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
BALRAM SINGH
A
v.
KELO DEVI
(Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022)
BSEPTEMBER 23, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Deeds and Documents – Unregistered agreement to sell – Suitfiled for permanent injunction instead of specific performance ofthe agreement to sell – Clever drafting – Respondent filed suit forCpermanent injunction on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell– In counter-claim, appellant sought decree of possession – Suitdismissed by Trial Court, appellant’s counter-claim allowed – Suitdecreed by First Appellate Court, counter-claim dismissed –Confirmed by High Court – On appeal, held: Agreement to sell wasDan unregistered document – Such an unregistered document is notadmissible in evidence – Plaintiff was conscious of the fact that shemight not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance ofsuch agreement to sell thus, filed a suit simplicitor for permanentinjunction only – In a given case, unregistered document can beused and/or considered for collateral purpose however, the plaintiffEcannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get ina suit for substantive relief, i.e., in the present case the relief forspecific performance – Further, in the present case the Plaintiffcannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis ofthe unregistered document, more particularly when the defendantFspecifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possessionwhich was allowed by the trial Court – Plaintiff cleverly prayed forpermanent injunction only and did not seek the substantive reliefof specific performance of the agreement to sell – Plaintiff cannotget the relief by clever drafting – Impugned order set aside – Suitdismissed – Decree passed by trial court dismissing the suit andGallowing the counter-claim is restored – Suit – Practice andProcedure.
Practice and Procedure – Clever drafting – Suit filed forpermanent injunction on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell– Held: Plaintiff cleverly prayed for relief of permanent injunctionH
only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specificperformance of the agreement to sell as it was an unregistereddocument and on such unregistered document, no decree for specificperformance could have been passed – Plaintiff cannot get the reliefby clever drafting – Deeds and Documents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6733of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 330 of 2001.
Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Sounak S. Das, Anshul Kumar, Manish KumarMishra, M. K. Verma, Ms. Sarika Tyagi, Dipankar Pokhariyal, Ms. ReenaRao, S. Nath Rath, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Ashutosh Srivastava, Ms. Anshu Gupta,Samant Singh, Ms. Preeja Nair, Niraj Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
3
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in Second Appeal No. 330/2001, by which the High Court hasdismissed the second appeal and has confirmed the judgment and decreepassed by the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree ofdismissal of suit passed by the learned trial Court, the original defendanthas preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are asunder:
That the respondent herein – original plaintiff (hereinafter referredto as the ‘original plaintiff’) instituted Original Suit No. 696 of 1997before the learned trial Court for permanent injunction only. The saidsuit was filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dated23.03.1996. The original plaintiff sought permanent injunction restrainingthe defendant from disturbing her possession in the suit property.
2.1 In the said suit, the appellant herein – original defendant fileda counter-claim seeking the decree of possession.
2.2 The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the originalplaintiff and refused to grant permanent injunction and allowed the A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Acounter-claim of the defendant on the ground that original plaintiff couldnot prove the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996 and that the originalplaintiff is in unauthorised possession of the suit property since 08.07.1997.The learned trial Court also held that the original plaintiff could not provethe agreement to sell for a sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/- and alsocould not prove that she was put in possession of the suit property onB23.03.1996.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decreepassed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the original plaintiffand allowing the counter-claim of the defendant, the original plaintiffpreferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned firstCappellate Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment anddecree passed by the learned trial Court and consequently decreed thesuit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The learned firstappellate Court also dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant.
2.4 The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate CourtDhas been confirmed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment andorder passed in Second Appeal No. 330 of 2001.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court in dismissing the second appeal andconfirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellateECourt, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and dismissing thecounter-claim, the original defendant has preferred the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – originaldefendant has vehemently submitted that the original plaintiff filed a suitfor permanent injunction solely on the basis of the agreement to sellFdated 23.03.1996, which, as such, was unregistered.
3.1 It is submitted that such an unregistered agreement to sell isnot admissible in evidence. It is submitted that therefore both, the learnedfirst appellate Court as well as the High Court have committed a graveerror in passing a decree for permanent injunction and dismissing theGcounter-claim.
3.2 It is further submitted that both, the learned first appellateCourt as well as the High Court have not properly appreciated the factthat the suit filed by the original plaintiff was only for permanent injunctionand she by adopting a clever drafting did not seek the relief for specificHperformance of agreement to sell as she was well aware that she would not succeed in the suit for specific performance on the basis of anunregistered agreement to sell. It is submitted that when the originalplaintiff cannot get the substantive relief of specific performance of theunregistered agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996, she would not be entitledto a decree for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistereddocument.
3.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentappeal.
4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondent – original plaintiff.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted that as per the settled position oflaw, an unregistered document can be used for collateral purpose andtherefore both, the first appellate Court as well as the High Court haverightly passed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendantfrom interfering with her possession, considering the agreement to selldated 23.03.1996 for collateral purpose of grant of permanent injunction.
4.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss thepresent appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original plaintiffinstituted a suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction only, whichwas claimed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996.However, it is required to be noted that the agreement to sell dated23.03.1996 was an unregistered document/agreement to sell on tenrupees stamp paper. Therefore, as such, such an unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence.
6. Having conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeedin getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell asthe same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor forpermanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, anunregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateralpurpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the reliefindirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantiverelief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance.Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aon the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, moreparticularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim forgetting back the possession which was allowed by the learned trial Court.The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction onlyand did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of theagreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered documentBand therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decreefor specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannotget the relief by clever drafting.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both,the learned first appellate Court and the High Court have committed aCgrave error in passing a decree for permanent injunction in favour of theplaintiff as against the defendant and dismissing the counter-claim filedby the original defendant. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the firstappellate Court and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellateDCourt decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and dismissing thecounter-claim of the defendant are unsustainable and the same deserveto be quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree passed by thelearned trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanentinjunction and allowing the counter-claim of the defendant deserves tobe restored.E
8. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned
8. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court dismissingSecond Appeal No. 330/2001, confirming the judgment and decree passedby the first appellate Court and the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2001passed by the first appellate Court decreeing the suit for permanentFinjunction in favour of the original plaintiff and dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently,the suit instituted by the original plaintiff for permanent injunction on thebasis of an unregistered agreement to sell is hereby dismissed and thecounter-claim filed by the original defendant is hereby allowed. TheGjudgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing thesuit and allowing the counter-claim is hereby restored. There shall be noorder as to costs.
H
Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)
Appeal allowed.