Bhagwan Dass vs Saroj Devi and Others

Inderjit Singh, J.—Bhagwan Dass-petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition against respondents/defendants Saroj Devi etc. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.5.2014 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pataudi, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed on behalf of respondents-defendants has been allowed without considering the law applicable on the present case and the plaint has been rejected. I have heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that Bhagwan Dass-plaintiff filed the suit against Saroj Devi etc.-defendants in which it was prayed that a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is not a party to the fraud committed by defendants No. 1 to 6 in execution of the fraudulent sale deed bearing Vasika No. 2536 dated 26.9.2007 and its mutation and the defendants are guilty of playing fraud in procuring the signatures of the plaintiff on the said sale deed, which has no sanctity in the eyes of law may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants No. 1 to 6 and an F.I.R. may also be registered at the instance of this Court against the said defendants/respondents.

As per averments stated in the plaint, copy of which is Annexure-P. 1, on 26.9.2007, defendants No. 4 to 6 approached the plaintiff and represented him that they are buying some land situated in Village Farrukh Nagar in the names of defendants No. 1 to 3 and they further asked him to witness the proposed sale deed. As defendants were in close relations with the plaintiff, therefore, he has no reason to disbelieve the representation made by defendants No. 4 to 6 to the Tehsil compound Farrukh Nagar and a sale deed drafted on the stamp papers without any seal/stamp of Sub-Registrar and even no signatures of other witnesses and parties were present, was handed over by Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate, who was acting as a scribe of the said sale deed. Thereafter, photograph of the plaintiff was also affixed on the said sale deed. Although, the plaintiff also raised a question to defendants No. 4 to 6, at that time, regarding the absence of other witnesses and owner of the land, but all the defendants made assurance to him that the transaction was legal and correct and they further assured him that he need not worry about the transaction.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the present plaintiff is a close relative of answering defendants and he was doing the business of property dealer as per the case of defendant No. 1 and the answering defendants believing the vendor of the answering defendants before the Sub-Registrar and duly witnessed the sale deed and since then the answering defendants are coming as absolute owners in possession of the same. Parbhati son of Prabhu Dayal had died more than 10 years ago and he was never seen to be in possession of the suit land and the answering defendants are cultivating the suit land. It is also in the written statement that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against the answering defendants being stranger to the suit land.

The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pataudi vide order dated 19.5.2014 held that a perusal of the relief clause in the plaint indicates that the plaintiff sought decree for declaration that he was not a party to the fraud allegedly committed by defendants No. 1 to 6 in execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff in the reply to the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. also clarified that he has not sought cancellation of the sale deed and has only sought relief to the extent that he was not party to the fraud committed upon the party to the alleged sale deed or to the owner of the land in question. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) held that the fact relating to fraud could only be decided in criminal or civil proceedings instituted at the behest of party to the said sale deed or by the actual owner of the land in question and not through present suit. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has correctly held that under the garb of present application, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to take new plea to avoid any legal consequences of attestation of the sale deed. The Court has specifically held that no violation of civil rights of the plaintiffs has been alleged in the plaint, so as to entitle the plaintiff to file the present suit. As such, the present suit is not maintainable and it was held that the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the same. Hence, the application was allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of; arguments argued that when the plaint was rejected, then it was not to be returned. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has also ordered to return the plaint to the plaintiff. Section 7, Rule 10-A C.P.C. will not apply in the present case, because the plaint is returned only to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted due to territorial jurisdiction etc., but in the present case, the plaint has been rejected on the ground that no civil right of the plaintiff has been violated nor the plaintiff has cause of action nor he has locus standi. Therefore, on this ground, under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. plaint can be rejected and the order passed by the Court on these grounds is correct one and as per law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act would apply. The provision of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act deals with when cancellation can be ordered. It is written that any person against whom written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. It is stated in the order itself that in the reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the plaintiff has clarified that he has not sought cancellation of sale deed and has only sought relief to the extent that he was not a party to the fraud committed upon the party to the alleged sale deed. Therefore, this suit was not under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Further more, the plaintiff is only an attesting witness. He is neither a vendor nor vendee. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case falls under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Section 34 of the Act reads as under:-

"34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.-Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interest to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Explanation.-A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."

I have gone through the above provisions. The plaintiff/petitioner is not claiming that he is entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property. Therefore, he cannot ask for any declaration.

In view of the above, I find that the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) is correct and as per law. The petitioner has no cause of action nor he has any locus standi to file the suit and no civil right of the petitioner/plaintiff has been violated and he has no interest in the property. The fact that whether he was a party to the fraud or not will be seen in the appropriate proceedings.

Therefore, from the above discussion, the impugned order is upheld. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.