BALRAM SINGH versus KELO DEVI

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 23-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
BALRAM SINGH
v.
 KELO DEVI
(Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Deeds and Documents – Unregistered agreement to sell – Suit
filed for permanent injunction instead of specific performance of
the agreement to sell – Clever drafting – Respondent filed suit for
permanent injunction on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell
– In counter-claim, appellant sought decree of possession – Suit
dismissed by Trial Court, appellant’s counter-claim allowed – Suit
decreed by First Appellate Court, counter-claim dismissed –
Confirmed by High Court – On appeal, held: Agreement to sell was
an unregistered document – Such an unregistered document is not
admissible in evidence – Plaintiff was conscious of the fact that she
might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of
such agreement to sell thus, filed a suit simplicitor for permanent
injunction only – In a given case, unregistered document can be
used and/or considered for collateral purpose however, the plaintiff
cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in
a suit for substantive relief, i.e., in the present case the relief for
specific performance – Further, in the present case the Plaintiff
cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of
the unregistered document, more particularly when the defendant
specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession
which was allowed by the trial Court – Plaintiff cleverly prayed for
permanent injunction only and did not seek the substantive relief
of specific performance of the agreement to sell – Plaintiff cannot
get the relief by clever drafting – Impugned order set aside – Suit
dismissed – Decree passed by trial court dismissing the suit and
allowing the counter-claim is restored – Suit – Practice and
Procedure.
Practice and Procedure – Clever drafting – Suit filed for
permanent injunction on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell
– Held: Plaintiff cleverly prayed for relief of permanent injunction
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 226
226
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
227
only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific
performance of the agreement to sell as it was an unregistered
document and on such unregistered document, no decree for specific
performance could have been passed – Plaintiff cannot get the relief
by clever drafting – Deeds and Documents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6733
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 330 of 2001.
Sanjeev Bhatnagar, Sounak S. Das, Anshul Kumar, Manish Kumar
Mishra, M. K. Verma, Ms. Sarika Tyagi, Dipankar Pokhariyal, Ms. Reena
Rao, 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.
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 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
BALRAM SINGH v.  KELO DEVI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
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 o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.