Suraj Bhat v. Financial Commissioner

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1287 OF 2025 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated,

27.12.2024 in l.A. No.634 ot 2023 in O.S. No.461 of 2023, on the file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was instituted by the respondenUplaintiff seeking (i) declaration of title, (ii) perpetual injunction, and (iii) eancellation of the registered gift deed dated 25.05.2022 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, as null and void.

3. The defendants filed an application under Order Vll Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19OS ('CPC"), praying for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred. Facts and Pleadings:

4.1. The relevant facts, as pleaded in the plaint, may be briefly noted. The Revision Petitioner No.'llDefendant No. 1 was the \ 2 absolute owner of open Plot No.200 in Su . ey No.1 39, admeasuring 184.44 square yards, situated at Rerr tfthy Vittage, Kothapalli Mandal, Kaimnagar (hereinafter referrl J to as .,lhe subject plot'). On 08.03.2006, Defendant No.1 offe- rd to sell the 'subject plot to the husband of the respondent/plairrl ff for a valid consideration of Rs.38,0001. Upon receipt ( , the said consideration, a registered Agreement of Sale - ;um_General Power of Attorney ("AGPA") was executed in ,i vour of the plaintiffs husband, and possession of the plot was : :livered. lt is the case of the respondent that she and her husbar J have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the propel / ever since, and that a residential house was subsequentl,r constructed thereon. After the death of her husband on 07,11.20.12, the 'respondent continued in possession, and the r-operty was mutated in the municipal records and she has k r en regularly paying property and municipal taxes.

4.2. lt is further averred that, with an intent to unlavtully reclaim the subject plot, Revision petitioner No.1/Dele rdant No 1 allegedly conspired and executed a fabricated rr 3istered gift deed in favour of Revision petitioner No.2/Defen i lnt No.2 on 25 05.2022. Subsequenfly, on 19.11.2022, t e revision ) 3 petitioners/defendants allegedly attempted to forcibly dispossess the respondent. Though such attempt was resisted, the petitioners purportedly declared their intention to take over the property and sought to alienate it to third parties, thereby infringing upon the respondent's rights. Consequently, the present suit was filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs. Contentions of the Parties:

5.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that the registered AGPA was admittedly executed on

08.03.2006, whereas the respondent's husband passed away on

07.O3.2012, and the impugned gift deed was executed between Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 25.05.2022. lt is submitted that the respondenUplaintiff has not pleaded that title was transferred under the AGPA. ln terms of Section 17 read with Section 49 of' the Registration Act, 1908, ownership of immovable property can pass only through a duly executed and registered conveyance deed, and no such document exists in this case.

5.2. lt was further argued that it is well settled that an AGPA does not convey title, as held in M.S. Ananthamurthy v J' Manjula,2025 SCC OnLine SC 448; Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust 4 v. Shrimanth Chhatrapati lJdayan Raje prataps rth Maharaj Bhonsle,2024 SCC Online SC 3844; Suraj Bhat v. Financial Commissioner. (2007) 6 SCC 186; and Jitendra t v State of Madhya Pradesh,2021 SCC Online SC 802.

5.3. The learned counsel further submifted that ; ny claim for declaration of title based on the AGpA ought to hart 6ssn ,.6. within the pericd cf limitation, and that the suit, inr; tuted neai.ly nineteen years after execution of the AGpA, is ex fir ,ie barred by limitation. The trial Court, it was argued, failed to :onsider this vital aspect and erred in dismissing the petrl on Hence. interference of this Court is warranted.

6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respr,r denl/plaintiff relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme C r urt in Vrnod lnfra Developers Ltd, v. Mahaveer Lunia,2O2S Livel, iw (SC) 630, to contend that the true character of a transact >n must be gathered from its contents, and not its nomenclatL.e. Although the instrument is titled as an AGpA, the pleadings r learly reveal that there was consens us ad-idem, payment ;f full sale consideration, and delivery of possession in f;l ,our of the respondent's husband. The respondent and her fan i y have been ( in peaceful and uninterrupted possession since 2006, and the mutation and revenue entries stand in her name. On these facts, it is contended, the respondent is entitled to seek declaration of title and other consequential reliefs.

6.2. lt was further submitted that the issue of limitation involves a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be conclusively decided at the threshold. The respondent's possession is protected under Section 202 of the lndian Contract Act, 1872 (agency coupled with interest) and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Propert;' Act, '!882 (doctrine of part performance) The execution of the subsequent gift deed by Defendant No 1 in favour of his wife, in respect of a property already alienated for valid consideration, demonstrates mala fides on the part of the petitioners. These matters, it is contended, can only determined upon trial. Hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition filed under Order Vll Rule 11 CPC, and no interference is warranted in revision. Discussion and Findings:

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. I 6

8. lt is relevant to note that the preamble : the AGpA describes Revision Petitioner No.1/Defendant r c.1 as the "Vendor' and the husband of the respondenUpla ntiff as the '"Purchaser " The recitals disclose that time was I )t made the essence of the contract, and that the vendor r,r i s unable to execute the sale deed due to domestic circun s tances. The document further authorizes the purchaser to act orr behalf of the vendor, including the authority to deliver poss(): sion of the property to sub-purchasers.

9. ln the above noted pleadings and factual :osition, the question that arises for consideration is whether t ased on the in the plaint, the suit is liable to be r: ected under .averments Order Vll Rute '1 1(d) CpC.

10. lt is well settled that while considering an ir :plication for rejectron of a plaint, the Court must confine itself to l e averments in the plaint and cannot look into the defence -; rised by the defendants. This principle has been enunciated by the Hon,ble ORDER CRP.No.1287 ot 20Zs DISMISSING THE CRP C ( b 7, t