Supreme Court of India
RAJPAL SINGH versus SAROJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANR on 18 May 2022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
A
RAJPAL SINGH
v.
SAROJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANR.(Civil Appeal No. 3489 of 2022)
B
MAY 18, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Specific Performance: Agreement to sell – Cancellation ofsale deed – Limitation period – Respondentno. 2-original owneragreed to sell his agricultural land to appellant-purchaser for theCsale consideration – Before the execution of the sale deed, adeclaration decree was obtained by the wife of the respondent no.2 against the respondent no. 2 whereby she was declared the ownerof the land, however, this was not brought to the notice of theappellant nor there was mutation in the revenue record – Thereafter,Drespondent no. 2 executed registered sale deed in favour of appellantand its name was entered in the revenue records – Appellantremained in possession and since then is cultivating the land – After5 years, the wife of the respondent no. 2 filed a suit seekingcancellation of sale deed in respect of the suit property on the basisof the declaratory decree obtained by her – Trial court decreed theEsuit, declaring that the sale deed in favour of the appellant wasillegal and nullity as the respondent no. 2 had no title over the landwhen he executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant – However,the first appellate set aside the decree – In appeal, the High Courtrestored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court – OnFappeal, held: Suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the wife ofthe respondent no. 2 was clearly barred by law as it was required tobe filed within the period of three years from the date of theknowledge of the sale deed – Relief for possession is a consequentialprayer and the substantive prayer was of cancellation of the SaleDeed and thus, the limitation period is required to be consideredGwith respect to the substantive relief claimed and not theconsequential relief–When composite suit is filed for cancellationof the sale deed as well as for recovery of the possession, thelimitation period is to be considered with respect to the substantiverelief of cancellation of the sale deed, which would be three yearsHfrom the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be cancelled – Suit filed by the wife of the respondent no. 2 forcancellation of the sale deed, can be said to be a substantive thus,the same was clearly barred by limitation–Hence, the suit ought tohave been dismissed on the ground of limitation –Appellant can besaid to be a bona fide purchaser and that the decree obtained bythe wife of the respondent no. 2 was a collusive decree – When thewife of the respondent no. 2 obtained the collusive decree,therewas already an agreement to sell in favour of the appellant andsubsequently appellant paid the entire balance sale consideration,which was accepted by the respondent no. 2–High Court failed toconsider all these aspects – Thus, the judgment and order of theHigh Court is unsustainable and is set aside and that of the firstappellate court is restored and the suit filed by the wife of therespondent no. 2 is dismissed – Limitation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3489of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2016 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.4594 of 2009 (O&M).
Ankur Mittal, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rudra Pratap, Talha A. Rahman, Shyam D. Nandan, Advs. forthe Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
21
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 29.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab andHaryana at Chandigarh in Second Appeal No. 4594 of 2009 by whichthe High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the originalplaintiff and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passedby the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for specific performanceand restoring the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Courtdismissing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, theoriginal respondent No.1 has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 That the respondent No.2 herein – original defendant No.2was the owner of the property in question being in the nature ofagricultural land. The original owner – original defendant No.2 entered AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Ainto one Agreement to Sell dated 04.04.1993 with the appellant agreeingto sell the property in question for a sale consideration of Rs. 115,000/-.The time for executing the sale deed was extended twice in writing onaccount of request by original defendant No.1 – executant of the saledeed – original owner.
B
B2.2 According to the case of the appellant herein – originaldefendant No.1, the original defendant No. 2 and the original plaintiff(husband and wife) hatched a conspiracy. The original plaintiff – wife ofthe executant of the agreement to sell filed a collusive suit for declaration(without seeking any consequential relief) against her husband - originalCdefendant no. 2 being Civil Suit No. 1643 of 1994. The said suit wasfiled on the premise that as per some alleged family settlement, theproperty in question fell to the share of the original plaintiff - wife.However, no family settlement was placed on record.
2.3 In the said collusive suit, the husband - original defendant No.D2 (executant of the agreement to sell in favour of the appellant) filedwritten statement admitting everything and praying for a decree in favourof his wife – original plaintiff in the present case. Consequently, a decreeof declaration was passed on 01.02.1995. The said decree was neitherregistered with Sub-Registrar’s Office, nor any entries were ever mutatedin the revenue records. Therefore, the appellant herein – originalEdefendant No.1 was kept in the dark as everything happened behind hisback.
2.4 On the strength of the Agreement to Sell dated 04.04.1993,the original defendant No.2- original owner executed the registered SaleDeed in favour of the appellant herein – original defendant No.1 onF19.04.1996. Necessary changes were consequently made in the revenuerecords as well as entering the name of the appellant immediately on31.05.1996. The appellant herein – original defendant No.1 remained inpossession and cultivating the agricultural land in question since then.
2.5 Almost after five years from the date of execution of theGregistered sale deed in favour of the appellant, the original plaintiff (wifeof the original owner) filed the present suit being Civil Suit. No. 419/2007 seeking cancellation of Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996 and relief ofpossession, claiming her title on the basis of the collusive decree dated01.02.1995.H
2.6 The suit was resisted by the appellant herein – originaldefendant No.1. The original defendant No.2 – respondent No.2 herein– the original executant of the registered Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996deliberately chose not to appear or file any written statement. That solelybased on the collusive decree dated 01.02.1995 between the originalplaintiff (wife) and the original defendant No.2 (husband), the learnedTrial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.2009observing that in view of the decree dated 01.02.1995 in Civil SuitNo.1643 of 1994, the day on which the original defendant No.2 executedthe registered Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996 in favour of the appellantherein – the original defendant No.1, he had no title and therefore, thesubsequent registered Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996 in favour of theappellant is illegal and a nullity.
2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decreepassed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant herein – original defendantNo.1 filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court. By a detailedjudgment and order dated 31.07.2009, the learned First Appellate Courtallowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passedby the learned Trial Court on merits as well as on the ground that the suitwas barred by limitation. At this stage, it is required to be noted that priorthereto and having come to know about the cheating and fraud committedby the plaintiff and the original defendant No.2 (husband and wife), theappellant herein had filed a complaint case for the offence under Section420 and 120B IPC and the same is reported to be pending.
2.8 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the First Appellate Court, the original plaintiff (wife) throughher legal heirs filed the present second appeal before the learned SingleJudge of the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the learnedSingle Judge of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and hasquashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the First AppellateCourt and consequently has restored the judgment and decree passedby the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit preferred by the originalplaintiff and granting the declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated19.04.1996 in favour of the appellant executed by the original defendantNo.2 (original owner – husband) is null and void.
2.9 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court in allowing the second appeal and AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aquashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learnedFirst Appellate Court and restoring the decree passed by the learnedTrial Court, the purchaser – the appellant herein - the original defendantNo.1 has preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri Ankur Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theBappellant has vehemently submitted that as such, the appellant is thevictim of the fraud played by the original plaintiff as well as the originaldefendant No.2 (wife and husband).
3.1 It is vehemently submitted that after having obtained thecollusive decree in favour of the original plaintiff – wife, the originalCowner – husband executed the registered sale deed in favour of theappellant by taking the full sale consideration, i.e., Rs.1,15,000/- withoutdisclosing the appellant about any decree dated 01.02.1995 passed inCivil Suit No.1643 of 1994.
3.2 It is submitted that both the learned Trial Court as well as theDHigh Court have not properly appreciated the fact that: -
(i) The appellant is the victim of fraud;
(ii) That the original plaintiff obtained a collusive decree in herfavour in Civil Suit No.1643 of 1994 and the decree wasEwithout any contest by the original owner;
(iii) That the collusive decree in Civil Suit No.1643 of 1994 wasobtained on the basis of the so-called family settlement,which never came on record;
(iv) That even after obtaining the original decree datedF01.02.1995 in Civil Suit No.1643 of 1994, neither the samewas registered before the Office of Sub-Registrar nor anymutation entry in the revenue record was made. It issubmitted that thereafter the original owner – originaldefendant No.2 – husband of the original plaintiff executedGthe Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996 by accepting the full saleconsideration of Rs.1,15,000/-;
(v) That immediately the appellant was put in possession andsince then he has been in possession and cultivating theland in question;H
(vi) That immediately after the registered sale deed in favourof the appellant, the same was mutated in the revenue recordon 31.05.1996 and despite the same, the present suit hasbeen filed after a period of five years, which is beyond theperiod of limitation, i.e., three years.
3.3 It is submitted therefore that when on appreciation of evidence,the First Appellate Court by a detailed judgment and order set aside thejudgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and consequentlydismissed the suit, the same was not required to be interfered with bythe High Court in exercise of the very limited jurisdiction while decidingthe second appeal.
3.4 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentappeal.
4. Present appeal is opposed by Shri Rudra Pratap, learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondents herein.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that the heirs of the originalplaintiff (wife) and the original defendant No.2 (husband) are representedby the same counsel. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that assuch the original defendant No.2 never contested the suit and/or filedthe written statement.
4.1 Shri Rudra Pratap, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondents has vehemently submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the High Court has not committed any errorin quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by theFirst Appellate Court and restoring the judgment and decree passed bythe learned Trial Court.
4.2 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing forthe respondents that as rightly observed and held by the learned TrialCourt as well as the High Court in second appeal that at the time whenthe original defendant No.2 executed the registered sale deed in favourof the appellant, he had no valid title in view of the decree passed infavour of the original plaintiff – wife in Civil Suit No. 1643 of 1994. It issubmitted that when it was found that the registered Sale Deed Dated19.04.1996 in favour of the appellant was by a person, who had no title,the same was a nullity and therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Adecreed the suit for declaration declaring the registered Sale Deed dated19.04.1996 in favour of the appellant as null and void.
4.3 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellantthat the suit was barred by limitation is concerned, it is submittedthat in the suit, the original plaintiff also prayed for the relief ofBpossession. It is contended that the suit for relief of possession canbe filed within a period of twelve years. Therefore, as the suit wasfiled within a period of twelve years and the same cannot be said tobe barred by limitation.
4.4 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the presentCappeal.5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties.
6. The original plaintiff instituted the Civil Suit No. 419/2007Dclaiming cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996 in respect ofthe suit property on the basis of the decree obtained by her in Civil SuitNo.1643 of 1994 dated 01.02.1995. It is required to be noted that inthe earlier said suit filed by the original plaintiff being Civil Suit No.1643of 1994, which was filed against her husband – original defendant No.2, there was no contest by the original defendant No.2 – originalElandowner and in the written statement, he admitted everything averredin the plaint and on the basis of which the decree came to be passed infavour of the original plaintiff on 01.02.1995. It is also required to benoted that the case on behalf of the original plaintiff in the earlier CivilSuit No.1643 of 1994 was based on an alleged family arrangement,Fwhich was never produced before the court and/or even thereafteralso. At this stage, it is required to be noted that prior thereto, therewas already an agreement to sell executed by the original defendantNo.2 – husband of the original plaintiff dated 04.04.1993 in favour ofthe Appellant herein and the time for executing the sale deed wasextended twice in writing on requests made by the original defendantGNo.2 – original owner on 02.04.1994 and 01.04.1995. After theaforesaid agreement to sell dated 04.04.1993 and after the firstextension, the original plaintiff filed the aforesaid collusive suit beingCivil Suit No.1643 of 1994 and obtained the collusive decree dated01.02.1995.H
Thereafter, on the strength of the agreement to sell dated04.04.1993 and without disclosing the decree passed against him in CivilSuit No.1643 of 1994 dated 01.02.1995, the original defendant No.2 –husband of the original plaintiff – original landowner executed theregistered Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996 and accepted the balance saleconsideration. Necessary changes were consequently made in therevenue records as well, entering the name of the original defendantNo.1 – appellant herein in the year 1996 itself. At this stage, it is to benoted that there was no mutation in the revenue records pursuant to thedecree dated 01.02.1995 in Civil Suit No.1643 of 1994. It has also comeon record and even as admitted by the original plaintiff in the presentsuit, the appellant herein - original defendant No.1 continued to be inpossession and cultivating the land from 1996 onwards and despite theabove she filed the suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996,which was in favour of the appellant - original defendant No.1 executedby her husband – original defendant No.2 in the year 2001.
Therefore, the subsequent present suit filed by the original plaintiffin Civil Suit No. 419/2007 can be said to be clearly barred by the law oflimitation. The suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed was required tobe filed within a period of three years from the date of the knowledge ofthe sale deed. Therefore, when the name of the appellant herein - originaldefendant No.1 was mutated in the revenue records in the year 1996 onthe basis of the registered Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996 and when hewas found to be in possession and cultivating the land since then, the suitwas required to be filed by the original plaintiff within a period of threeyears from 1996. The submission on behalf of the original plaintiff (nowrepresented through her heirs) that the prayer in the suit was also forrecovery of the possession and therefore the said suit was filed withinthe period of twelve years and therefore the suit has been filed withinthe period of limitation, cannot be accepted. Relief for possession is aconsequential prayer and the substantive prayer was of cancellation ofthe Sale Deed dated 19.04.1996 and therefore, the limitation period isrequired to be considered with respect to the substantive relief claimedand not the consequential relief. When a composite suit is filed forcancellation of the sale deed as well as for recovery of the possession,the limitation period is required to be considered with respect to thesubstantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed, which would be threeyears from the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be AB
C
D
E
F
GH
Acancelled. Therefore, the suit, which was filed by the original plaintifffor cancellation of the sale deed, can be said to be a substantive thereforethe same was clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the learned Trial Courtought to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barredby limitation. As such the learned First Appellate Court was justified andBright in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learnedTrial Court and consequently dismissing the suit. The High Court hascommitted a grave error in quashing and setting aside a well-reasonedand a detailed judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Courtdismissing the suit and consequently restoring the judgment and decreepassed by the Trial Court.C
7. Even the High Court has also not properly appreciated andconsidered the fact that the appellant herein - original defendant No.1can be said to be a bona fide purchaser and that the decree obtained bythe original plaintiff in the earlier Civil Suit No.1643 of 1994 was a collusivedecree and everything was done behind the back of the appellant hereinD- original defendant No.1. After pocketing the money and receiving thefull sale consideration, the original defendant No.2 as such did not contestthe present suit and now in the present appeal, both, the heirs of theoriginal plaintiff as well as the original defendant No.2 are representedby the same Advocate contesting the present appeal. Be that as it may,Ewhen the original plaintiff – wife of the original defendant No.2 (originallandowner) obtained the collusive decree dated 01.02.1995 in Civil SuitNo.1643 of 1994, there was already an agreement to sell in favour ofthe appellant herein – original defendant No.1 by which the original owner– original defendant No.2 agreed to sell the land in question and a sumFof Rs.40,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of agreement andsubsequently the appellant herein – original defendant No.1 paid theentire balance sale consideration, which was accepted by the originaldefendant No.2 – husband of the plaintiff, the High Court has erred inallowing the Second Appeal. All these aspects have not at all beenconsidered by the High Court, which were considered by the FirstGAppellate Court. The High Court has also not at all considered whetherthe suit was barred by limitation or not, which ought to have beenconsidered by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and thesame deserves to be quashed and set aside.H
RAJPAL SINGH v. SAROJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS ANDANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court dated 29.09.2016 passed in Second appeal No. 4594 of2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passedby the First Appellate Court is hereby restored and consequently the suitfiled by the original plaintiff stands dismissed.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain and Amarendra Kumar(Assisted by : Bodhi Ramteke, LCRA)
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H