Niranjan Singh vs Anita Devi & Another

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Appellant by way of present appeal has assailed order dated 21.2.2025 passed by Additional District Judge-I, Una, in Civil Miscellaneous application No. 613 of 2024, titled as Anita Devi vs. Poonam Rani Rana and others, whereby application filed by Anita Devi (respondent No. 1 herein) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and defendants i.e. Poonam Rani Rana (respondent No. 2 herein) and Niranjan Singh (appellant herein) have been directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit land as existing on date of passing of order with further direction not to alienate and/or create any encumbrance thereover till pendency of suit.

Parties herein shall be referred to as per their original status in the Civil suit i.e. plaintiff Anita Devi (respondent No. 1 herein) and defendant No.1 Poonam Rani Rana (respondent No. 2 herein), Niranjan Singh-defendant No. 2 (appellant herein).

Defendant No. 2 Niranjan Singh and defendant No. 1 Poonam Rani Rana entered into an agreement to sell dated 19.8.2024, whereby defendant No. 1 Poonam Rani Rana had agreed to sell the suit land to defendant No. 2 Niranjan Singh for a sale consideration of ₹96,00,000/-

₹95,00,000/-, the loan amount of Indian Bank, received by defendant No. 1 Poonam Rani Rana by mortgaging the suit land with Indian Bank was to be paid by purchaser defendant No. 2 Niranjan Singh. At the time of execution of agreement defendant No. 2 had paid advance amount of ₹26,00,000/- and rest amount was to be paid within three months.

₹2,50,000/- was transferred by defendant No. 2 Niranjan Singh to the account of defendant No. 1 Poonam Rani on 17.8.2024 as advance money. Out of total sale consideration, ₹26,00,000/- stood paid on the date of entering into agreement to sell. Remaining amount of sale consideration of ₹70,00,000/- by defendant No. 2 was either transferred to the account of defendant No. 1 through RTGS or deposited in cash in the account of defendant No. 1. The last payment was transferred to the Bank account on 11.9.2024.

Thereafter on 12.9.2024 sale deed of the suit land was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, wherein in first part of sale deed affidavits of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 were also appended alongwith part-2 of sale deed, which was duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Una vide Vasika No. 1749 dated 13.9.2024.

It is also case of defendant No. 2 that on 21.9.2024, defendant No. 1 had obtained his signatures on an agreement purporting that those signatures were required with respect to undertaking of defendant No. 1 to pay amount to the plaintiff after receiving it from defendant No. 2.

On 4.10.2024 plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance, cancellation of sale deed registered vide Vasika No. 1749 dated on 4.10.2024 and declaration that mutation No. 1488 dated 23.9.2024 is wrong, illegal, null and void, with claim that defendant No. 1 had entered into agreement to sell dated 22.8.2024 with her and had admitted receipt of ₹70,00,000/-, against total amount of consideration of ₹80,00,000/- and remaining amount of ₹10,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 31.12.2024 at the time of registration of sale deed. In alternative suit for recovery of double of the earnest money ₹70,00,000/- with 18% interest was also prayed to be decreed in favour of plaintiff.

Photocopies of documents, which were placed before the trial Court, have also been placed on record by the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

From the record, it transpires that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell suit property to defendant No. 2 Niranjan Singh for a consideration of ₹96,00,000/-, out of which ₹26,00,000/- had already been received at the time of entering into agreement to sell and remaining amount of ₹70,00,000/- was transferred/paid by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 either through RTGS or cash deposit in the Bank account. First bank transfer of ₹2,50,000/- was made on 17.8.2024.

It is also an admitted fact that the suit property was mortgaged with Indian Bank for disbursement of loan to defendant No. 1 and account of defendant No. 1 was declared as NPA for non payment of loan. Whereafter, with the consent of mortgagee Bank (Indian Bank), defendant No. 2 had obtained loan of ₹70,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank for clearing the loan account of defendant No. 1 in Indian Bank with proposal to mortgage the suit land with the Punjab National Bank against the financial assistance provided to defendant No. 2 to clear the loan amount of defendant No. 1.

After clearing the loan in Indian Bank on 11.9.2024 by transferring/depositing the amount to the Bank through account of defendant No. 1, sale deed was executed on 12.9.2024, which was registered on 13.9.2024. On the basis of sale deed, mutation No. 1488 was attested on 23.9.2024. As per revenue record, placed before me, an endorsement of a note has been made by Patwari, stating that vide communication dated 24.9.2024 received from Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Una stay has been made operative on the sale deed till further order.

It is also apt to record that defendant No. 2- Niranjan Singh had paid the entire loan amount on 11.9.2024 and after closure of loan account of Indian Bank, mutation No. 1485 was attested on 12.9.2024, removing the charge/mortgage entry which was in favour of the Indian Bank.

Agreement dated 22.8.2024 is claimed to have been entered between defendant No. 1 Poonam Rani and plaintiff Anita Devi. In this agreement it has been recorded that ₹70,00,000/- was paid in cash to defendant No. 1 in installments and balance amount of ₹10,00,000/- was to be paid and received at the time of registration of sale deed on or before 31.12.2024.

This agreement dated 22.8.2024 is typed, but in the end, by hand written note, it has also been added that the suit land is mortgaged with the Bank for amount of ₹95,00,000/- and out of that ₹20,00,000/-has been deposited on 23.8.2024 and balance amount shall be deposited in installments by plaintiff Anita Devi.

The date of agreement is 22.8.2024 but it contains information about deposit in bank on 23.8.2024. Therefore, it appears that either this agreement was prepared ante dated, but after 23.8.2024, or there is tampering in the document. It is also apt to record that the witnesses to the agreement are Chandan Angra husband of Anita Devi plaintiff and Aman Rana husband of Poonam Rani defendant No. 1.

It is also apt to record that at the time of registration of Rapat GD No. 28, in Police Post Una, regarding taking of his signatures on alleged agreement/document dated 21.9.2024, defendant No. 2 had produced copy of the said alleged agreement dated 21.9.2024. In the copy placed on record and submitted to the Police by defendant No. 2 there are signatures of Poonam Rani and Niranjan Singh only. One Ashwani Jaitik and plaintiff Anita Devi have been shown to be witness to the agreement, but there are no signatures of Anita Devi and Ashwani Jaitik in the copy submitted to the Police on 23.9.2024. However, copy produced on record by the plaintiff Anita Devi alongwith reply is also signed by Ashwani Jaitik as a witnesses and identifier, but it is also without signatures of Anita Devi. It has been stated to have been notarized by the Norary at Bangana on 21.9.2024. It is also apt to notice that the agreement available with Niranjan Singh has not been notarized, whereas copy of agreement produced by plaintiff is notarized.

Contention of learned counsel for defendant No. 2 also has force that all the parties to the agreement are resident of Una Town, but the agreement has been attested by Notary at Bangana which is a distant place from Una Town. With respect to cash payment of ₹70,00,000/-there is no details of any kind.

The material placed on record creates prima facie doubt with respect to the genuineness of the agreement to sell dated 22.8.2024 and agreement dated 21.9.2024.

Even if it is considered that defendant No. 1 entered with plaintiff in to an agreement to sell on 22.8.2024 after entering into agreement to sell with defendant No. 2 on 19.8.2024, then also being a bonafide purchaser and having paid entire amount, majority portion whereof has been paid through Bank Account, he cannot be punished for any mischief played by defendant No. 1 with plaintiff. The suit has been filed on 4.10.2024, whereas it is apparent from the material on record that Chandan Angra husband of plaintiff had obtained copy of affidavit and sale deeds executed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 on 21.9.2024 at 1.21.P.M. and thereafter defendant No. 1 purchased stamp paper for agreement on 21.9.2024 at 2:53 P.M. Plaintiff is claiming that this agreement dated 21.9.2024 substantiates the claim of plaintiff, but it is worth to notice that it has not been signed by plaintiff and it has been notarized at Bangana, that too after receipt of copy of sale deed by husband of plaintiff on the very same day. Otherwise also agreement dated 21.9.2024 has no bearing on the agreement to sell entered as well as sale deed executed between defendant No. 1 and defendant 2 in furtherance to payment made by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1/Bank, especially when details of transactions of consideration amount are on record in the Bank Account Statements.

The observations of learned Additional District Judge, that defendant No. 1 has not whispered about the agreement entered into between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 to conclude that agreement dated 19.8.2024 is suspicious, is misconceived as defendant No. 2 in his written statement/reply to the application has stated about execution of agreement dated 19.8.2024 and have also placed on record relevant documents, substantiating his plea.

Learned Additional District Judge has committed illegality by ignoring the material facts available on record and arriving at a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. It appears that either defendant No. 1 has defrauded the plaintiff or plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are hand in glove with each other to deprive defendant No. 2 from the benefits of sale deed and also to cheat Punjab National Bank, especially when defendant No. 2 has cleared the entire loan amount of defendant No. 1 by legal and transparent means.

It is also note-worthy that, in alternative, there is suit for recovery of double of earnest money ₹70,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum thereon. Therefore, in given facts and circumstances, plaintiff herself has quantified the damages and for creation of third party rights in form of defendant No. 2 as well as Punjab National Bank, in case of allowing the suit plaintiff may be compensated in terms of money as prayed. In present case there is involvement of public money obtained by parties as loan from the Bank. For creating mess by defendant No. 1 and plaintiff or even by defendant No. 1 only, public money cannot be allowed to be disbursed without security. This aspect has also been ignored by learned Additional District Judge.

Learned Additional District Judge though has stated that prima facie case, balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff and that there is possibility of irreparable loss in case status quo with respect to the suit property is not maintained, however, aforesaid facts have been ignored by learned Additional District Judge.

From the above observation, it is clear that in given facts and circumstances, learned Additional District Judge has exercised his discretion arbitrarily and perversely.

In view of aforesaid observation, I find merit in the appeal and accordingly impugned order dated 21.2.2025 is quashed and set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed. Any subsequent action taken/order passed by concerned authorities including Revenue authorities also stands quashed and set aside. Defendant No. 2 and Bank shall proceed further in accordance with law for creating charge in suit property against disbursement of loan as agreed between them.

The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms alongwith pending application(s), if any.