Rekhraj And Ors vs Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan And Ors

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.2019 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court), vide which petitioners' application dated 4.7.2018 filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, has been rejected.

Briefly narrated the facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed the suit for possession on the basis of a gift deed dated 14.3.2012, executed in their favour by late Madan Lal Kachhawaha. In the suit so filed by the plaintiffs, the defendants having possession of the property filed a counter claim seeking declaration of ownership asserting that they have procured rights, interest and title in the property by virtue of a sale deed dated 5.4.2012, which has been executed in their favour in furtherance of an agreement to sell dated 1.12.2005 and sought protection of their possession.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the learned trial Court on 2.4.2018:

"1. आया स्व. श्री मदनलाल जी ने वादग्रस्त भूखंड सं. 82 पर वर्ष 1989 में तल मंजिल का निर्माण कार्य करवाया एवं वर्ष 2002 में बैंक से ऋण प्राप्त कर प्रथम मंजिल का निर्माण कार्य करवाया ? ... वादीगण

आया वादग्रस्त मकान पर स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया सिटी ब्रांच जोधपुर से जो ऋण लिया गया था, उसका भुगतान स्व. श्री मदनलाल द्वारा वर्ष 2010 तक किया गया ?... वादीगण

आया स्व. श्री मदनलाल ने वादीगण के पक्ष में दिनांक 14. 3.12 को गिफ्ट डीड निष्पादित कर रजिस्टर्ड करवा दी और वादग्रस्त सम्पूर्ण जायदाद का कब्जा वादीगण को सुपुर्द कर दिया तब से वादीगण वादग्रस्त जायदाद के मालिक है ? ... वादीगण

आया प्रतिवादी सं. 1 दिनांक 15.3.12 को वादग्रस्त मकान के ताले तोड़कर प्रथम मंजिल पर काबिज हो गया ? ... वादीगण

आया स्व. श्री मदनलाल द्वारा प्रतिवादी सं. 1 व 2 के पक्ष में निष्पादित किये हुए दस्तावेज दिनांक 1.12.05 फर्जी एवं कूटरचित है जो प्रतिवादी सं. 1 ने विश्वास का दुरूपयोग करते हुए स्व. श्री मदनलाल से बनवाये तथा दिनांक 1.12. 05 को निष्पादित बेचान इकरारनामा साक्ष्य में ग्राह्य नहीं है? ... वादीगण

आया वादीगण प्रतिवादीगण के विरूद्ध स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी है ? ... वादीगण

आया स्व. श्री मदनलाल ने वादग्रस्त मकान का पूर्ण प्रतिफल प्राप्त करने के पश्चात प्रतिवादी सं. 1 के पक्ष में दिनांक 1.12.05 को बेचान इकरारनामा व वसीयतनामा एवं प्रतिवादी सं. 2 के पक्ष में आम मुख्त्यारनामा निष्पादित किया ? ... प्रतिवादीगण

आया स्व. श्री मदनलाल द्वारा प्रतिवादी सं. 1 व 2 के पक्ष में निष्पादित दस्तावेजात पर वादी सं. 2 व 3 ने सही मानते हुए सहमति के तौर पर साखें डाली एवं वादीगण उपरोक्त दस्तावेजात को चुनौती देने से एस्टोप्ड (ESTOPPED) है ? ... प्रतिवादीगण

आया स्व. श्री मदनलाल द्वारा प्रतिवादी सं. 1 व 2 के पक्ष में निष्पादित दस्तावेजात के पश्चात उनको वादीगण के पक्ष में गिफ्ट डीड रजिस्टर्ड करवाने व कब्जा सुपुर्द करने का कोई अधिकार नहीं था ? ... प्रतिवादीगण

आया प्रतिवादी सं. 1 व 2 द्वारा जवाबदावे में वर्णित तथ्यां के अनुसार वादीगण कोई सहायता प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी नहीं है ? ... प्रतिवादीगण

आया स्व. श्री मदनलाल द्वारा प्रतिवादी सं. 2 के पक्ष में निष्पादित आम मुख्त्यारनामा के आधार पर प्रतिवादी सं. 2 के पक्ष में दिनांक 5.4.12 को विक्रय पत्र रजिस्टर्ड हो चुका है एवं प्रतिवादी सं. 1 विक्रय पत्र व वसीयत के आधार पर वादग्रस्त मकान का अकेला मालिक है तथा वादीगण से विवादित परिसर का कब्जा प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ?.... प्रतिवादीगण

अनुतोष ?"

After framing of the issues on 4.7.2018, the petitioners filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that additional issues be framed in light of their pleadings, particularly, keeping their stand into consideration that since Late Madan Lal Kachhawa had gifted the property by way of registered gift deed dated 14.3.2012 to the plaintiffs, the right flowing from the agreement to sell dated 5.4.2012 has extinguished and, thereafter, the power of attorney holder could not execute the sale deed in favour of the defendants. It was also prayed that an issue be also framed, in view of the fact that "a suit for declaration is not maintainable simply on the basis of an agreement to sell".

The petitioners' application aforesaid under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 7.1.2019, inter alia, observing that the issues nos.9 and 11 already framed by the trial Court takes care of the plaintiffs' concern. While rejecting petitioners' application, the learned trial Court has made a reference of the order dated 14.3.2012, passed by this Court in proceedings emanating from rejection of his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed with respect to defendants' counter claim.

Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner oopuning the order under consideration argued that the petitioners' basic stand before the learned trial Court has been that they are having valid title, interest and right in the property in furtherance of a registered gift deed executed by late Madan Lal Kachhawa, the owner of the property and hence, their title and interest is superior to the rights of the defendants, which was based on an agreement to sell.

He admitted that though a sale deed has been executed in favour of the defendants by the power of attorney holder Smt. Kalawati W/o Roshan Lal (respondent no.3 herein), but the same cannot be given credence over the valid title in favour of the petitioners conferred by owner of the property viz., late Sh. Madan Lal Kachhawa. He further argued that the counter claim filed by the defendants - respondents was essentially a suit for declaration of title based upon agreement to sell, which is impermissible in the eyes of law, inasmuch as an immovable property can be transferred only by way of registered document, and not by way of agreement to sell.

On the other hand, Mr. Boob, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned trial court and contended that the issues nos.9 and 11 as framed by the learned trial court takes into its sweep all the question involved in the case, including the pleadings and concern of the petitioners. He further argued that in the teeth of the finding recorded by this Court in its order dated 14.3.2012, the plaintiffs- petitioners contention is untenable, inasmuch as this Court has observed that the gift deed, which is gratuitous in nature, does not confer any right upon the plaintiffs.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Looking to the pleadings of the parties, more particularly in view of the fact that the owner of the property namely, late Sh. Madan Lal Kachhawa had transferred the property to the plaintiffs- petitioners, vide a registered gift deed dated 14.3.2012, the issue raised by the plaintiffs - petitioners becomes of a significant importance.

The facts are not in dispute that the sale deed in favour of the defendant no.1 has been executed on 5.4.2012, i.e., after execution of the sale deed in plaintiffs' favour on 14.3.2012. That apart, the said sale deed had been executed by the wife of the defendant no.1, Smt. Kalawati (defendant no.2) being a person in whose favour a power of attorney had been executed alongwith the agreement to sell dated 1.12.2005.

The facts highlighted hereinabove goes to the root of the matter and the learned trial court is required to pronounce upon these issues raised by the plaintiffs.

As far as issues nos.9 and 11 as framed by the learned trial court are concerned, they simply take into account one side of the story, inasmuch as these issues will bring to fore only as to whether the gift deed dated 14.3.2012 in favour of the plaintiffs was valid or not and/or as to whether the owner of the property late Madan Lal Kachhawa had power to gift the property to the plaintiffs in the teeth of the agreement to sell dated 1.12.2005.

In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has seriously erred in rejecting petitioners' application dated 4.7.2018 filed for framing additional issues, under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order suffers from manifest error of law and wrongful exercise of jurisdiction, so vested in the court.

The order dated 7.1.2019 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The following additional issues are framed as issues nos. 12 and 13 and issue no.12 as framed by the learned trial court shall be substituted as issue no.14:

"(12) आया बेचान इकरारनामा दिनांक 1.12.2005 के आधार पर वांछित घोषणा का अनुतोष पोषणीय है?

(13) आया मदनलाला द्वारा बख्शीषनामा दिनांक 14.03.2.012 के निष्पादन के उपरान्त, प्रतिवादी संख्या-2 को अपने हक में आम मुख्तियार नामे के आधार पर प्रतिवादी संख्या-1 को वादग्रस्त सम्पति के बाबत विक्रय पत्र दिनांक 5.4.2012 निष्पादन तथा पंजीयन करवाने का अधिकार था?"

The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.