Balram Singh Versus Kelo Devi

Balram Singh Versus Kelo Devi Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6733 OF 2022

Balram Singh …Appellant

Versus

Kelo Devi …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 330/2001, by which the High Court has

dismissed the second appeal and has confirmed the judgment and

decree passed by the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and

decree of dismissal of suit passed by the learned trial Court, the original

defendant has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the respondent herein – original plaintiff (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘original plaintiff’) instituted Original Suit No. 696 of 1997 before

the learned trial Court for permanent injunction only. The said suit was

1

filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996.

The original plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the

defendant from disturbing her possession in the suit property.

2.1 In the said suit, the appellant herein – original defendant filed a

counter-claim seeking the decree of possession.

2.2 The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the original

plaintiff and refused to grant permanent injunction and allowed the

counter-claim of the defendant on the ground that original plaintiff could

not prove the agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996 and that the original

plaintiff is in unauthorised possession of the suit property since

08.07.1997. The learned trial Court also held that the original plaintiff

could not prove the agreement to sell for a sale consideration of Rs.

14,000/- and also could not prove that she was put in possession of the

suit property on 23.03.1996.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree

passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the original

plaintiff and allowing the counter-claim of the defendant, the original

plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned

first appellate Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment

and decree passed by the learned trial Court and consequently decreed

2

the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The learned first

appellate Court also dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant.

2.4 The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court has

been confirmed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order

passed in Second Appeal No. 330 of 2001.

2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court in dismissing the second appeal and

confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned first

appellate Court, decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and

dismissing the counter-claim, the original defendant has preferred the

present appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – original

defendant has vehemently submitted that the original plaintiff filed a suit

for permanent injunction solely on the basis of the agreement to sell

dated 23.03.1996, which, as such, was unregistered.

3.1 It is submitted that such an unregistered agreement to sell is not

admissible in evidence. It is submitted that therefore both, the learned

first appellate Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave

error in passing a decree for permanent injunction and dismissing the

counter-claim.

3

3.2 It is further submitted that both, the learned first appellate Court as

well as the High Court have not properly appreciated the fact that the

suit filed by the original plaintiff was only for permanent injunction and

she by adopting a clever drafting did not seek the relief for specific

performance of agreement to sell as she was well aware that she would

not succeed in the suit for specific performance on the basis of an

unregistered agreement to sell. It is submitted that when the original

plaintiff cannot get the substantive relief of specific performance of the

unregistered agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996, she would not be

entitled to a decree for permanent injunction on the basis of such an

unregistered document.

3.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present

appeal.

4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent – original plaintiff.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted that as per the settled position of law,

an unregistered document can be used for collateral purpose and

therefore both, the first appellate Court as well as the High Court have

rightly passed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant from interfering with her possession, considering the

4

agreement to sell dated 23.03.1996 for collateral purpose of grant of

permanent injunction.

4.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present

appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original plaintiff

instituted a suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction only, which

was 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 dated

23.03.1996 was an unregistered document/agreement to sell on ten

rupees 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 succeed in

getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the

same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for permanent

injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered

document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose.

However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly

which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief,

namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance.

5

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction

on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more

particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for

getting back the possession which was allowed by the learned trial

Court. The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction

only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of

the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered

document and therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to

sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The

plaintiff cannot get 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 a grave

error in passing a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the

plaintiff as against the defendant and dismissing the counter-claim filed

by the original defendant. The impugned judgment and order passed by

the High Court, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the first

appellate Court and the judgment and decree passed by the first

appellate Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction and

dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant are unsustainable and the

same deserve to be quashed and set aside and the judgment and

decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the

6

plaintiff for permanent injunction and allowing the counter-claim of the

defendant deserves to be restored.

8. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment and order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court

dismissing Second Appeal No. 330/2001, confirming the judgment and

decree passed by the first appellate Court and the judgment and decree

dated 29.01.2001 passed by the first appellate Court decreeing the suit

for permanent injunction 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 the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell is hereby

dismissed and the counter-claim filed by the original defendant is hereby

allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court

dismissing the suit and allowing the counter-claim is hereby restored.

There shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]

7