Janki Prasad v. Kanta & Anr.

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 104 read with Order XLI Rule 1 further read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant has assailed the order dated 04.07.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-02, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in case bearing CS DJ No. 67/2022 whereby his application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

2. The brief facts as culled out from the material placed on record are that respondents No.1 and 2 are the appellant’s sister-in-law and real brother respectively. The appellant has claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property after purchasing it from one Smt. Harjeet Kaur Rattan in the year 2006 vide registered Conveyance Deed. It was claimed that respondent No.2 in conspiracy with respondent No.1 induced the appellant to enter into an arrangement under which the appellant was made to encash the cheques given by respondent No.2, and then handover the equivalent amount in cash back to respondent No.2. The appellant was further made to sign on certain documents and appear before the Sub-Registrar office to execute the Sale Deed dated 04.12.2019 for a total sale consideration @ Rs.10.60 lakhs. It is the case of the appellant that the entire sale consideration remained unpaid.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court ought to have directed the parties to maintain status quo as the appellant was able to make out a prima facie case in his favour.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant having executed the Sale Deed dated 04.12.2019 and receiving the entire sale consideration is non-suited to seek the relief claimed in the application. It is submitted that the suit was filed as a counterblast to the other litigations initiated by them.

5. The underlying suit was filed by the appellant seeking reliefs of declaration, possession, permanent & mandatory injunction and for mesne profit. The admitted case of the parties is that the appellant being the owner of the suit property, sold the same to respondent No.2 by way of registered Sale Deed dated 04.12.2019. The appellant claims that he was coerced in executing the sale documents and did not receive any amount towards the sale consideration. A perusal of the Sale Deed would show that it contains an acknowledgement of the receipt of the entire payment of the sale consideration of Rs.10.60 lakhs. The acknowledgement is also reflected in the Receipt which was separately executed on the said date. The sale consideration of Rs.10.60 lakhs is statedly paid in the following manner:- AMOUNT (INR)

MODE OF PAYMENT RS.2,00,000/- RS.3,00,000/ - RS.1,00,000/- RS.3,90,000/- RS.70,000/- BY CHEQUE NO.000101, DT.28/08/2019.

BY CHEQUE NO.000023, DT.21/08/2019.

BY CHEQUE NO.000103, DT.05/09/2019.

BY CHEQUE NO.000024, DT.02/12/2019.

ALL CHEQUES ISSUED FROM THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.

SHANTI NAGAR, TRI NAGAR NEW DELHI-110035 CASH IN ADVANCE.

6. The respondents in the written statement explained the manner of transaction of sale consideration amount and also filed their statement of account which showed that the cheques for Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- were deposited by the appellant in his account and he also encashed the same. In so far as cheque for a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- is concerned, it was never presented in time, and against which the respondents claim to have paid the equivalent amount in cash. To substantiate its stand, the respondents also placed on record before the Trial Court their statement of account showing withdrawal of Rs.3.90 lakhs after the execution of sale deed. The necessary pleadings in this regard were also made in the written statement.

7. The appellant, on the other hand, did not place on record any documents to show that corresponding cash withdrawals were made after depositing cheques for Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- to substantiate his claim that the equivalent amounts were paid to the respondents in terms of the understanding. In an application seeking interim injunction, the appellant/plaintiff is required to show existence of a prima facie case as well as balance of convenience. It is also required to show that it would suffer irreparable loss if the relief is not granted.

8. On a prima facie consideration of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the appellant has failed to show a prima facie case in his favor. While he placed no material on record in support of his claim, the respondent has shown entries in statement of accounts in support of their claim of having purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed. Accordingly, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed alongwith the pending application.

9. Nothing stated hereinabove, which is only prima facie, shall be construed as a final expression or opinion on the merits of the case and will not influence the final outcome of the Trial.