Disposed¶19

Rajesh Ninaji Nikhade v. Ajay Maniklal Udasi and Another

Bombay HC14 Jul 2025WP/3629/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sale deed cancellation rider; non-payment of sale consideration Rs. 50,00,000/-; cheque versus cash payment dispute; Order VII Rule 11 CPC application allowed by trial Court; appeal with injunction application; restraint on creating third party interest; possession not protected; Order VI Rule 4 CPC specific denial / evasive denial of possession; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; notice and interim relief returnable in three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Notice ordered on the petition and interim relief, returnable in three weeks; petitioner directed to serve respondents additionally through Speed Post and through counsel appearing before the first appellate Court, and to file affidavit of service. ¶19

Rajesh Ninaji Nikhade vs Ajay Maniklal Udasi and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the sale consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/- was received by the petitioner — respondent no. 1 contends he paid in cash, while the petitioner contends both cheques were taken back and no fresh cheque was ever issued. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

While receipt of the sale consideration is disputed, the recitals of the sale deed — that it shall stand cancelled if the consideration is not received — are not open to dispute.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 3629 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Anil L. Pansare J., 15-07-2025): The petitioner-plaintiff sued to declare a sale deed null and void for non-payment of the Rs. 50,00,000/- consideration, which the deed recorded as payable by two cheques with a rider that the deed shall stand cancelled if the cheque amounts are not received; respondent no. 1 opposed the suit claiming he had paid in cash. The trial Court allowed respondent no. 1's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the petitioner, being himself party to the sale deed, could not file such suit. On the petitioner's appeal, the first appellate Court partly allowed his injunction application — restraining creation of third party interest but leaving possession unprotected. Senior counsel for the petitioner urged that the respondents' denial of his possession is evasive and not the specific denial required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC. The Court observed that although receipt of the consideration is disputed, the sale-deed recital that the deed stands cancelled on non-receipt of consideration is not disputable. Notice on the petition and interim relief was ordered, returnable in three weeks, with service through Speed Post and through counsel before the first appellate Court and an affidavit of service.

¶1

1 wp 3629.2025.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶3

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶4

Writ Petition No. 3629 of 2025

¶5

[Rajesh Ninaji Nikhade ..vs.. Ajay Maniklal Udasi and anr.]

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

- - - - Mr. R. L. Khapre, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P. L Amale and Mr. B. G. Raut, Advocate for the petitioner

¶9

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE J.

¶10

DATED : 15-07-2025

¶11

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

The petitioner – plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that sale deed executed by him in favour of respondent no. 1 – original defendant no. 1 was null and void for non payment of sale consideration.

¶13

The sale deed refers to consideration amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- and payment by two cheques with a rider that if the amount mentioned in cheques is not received by the petitioner, the sale deed shall stand cancelled.

¶14

Learned Senior Counsel submits that both the cheques were taken back by respondent no. 1 with a promise to issue fresh cheque which was never given. Accordingly, suit came to be filed. Respondent no. 1 appeared and opposed the suit on the ground that he made payment in cash. Learned Senior Counsel submits that this averment is made without any evidence.

¶15

Thus, there is dispute as to whether the amount of consideration was received by the petitioner. There however, cannot be any dispute as regards recitals in the sale deed, which states that, if the amount of consideration is not received, the sale deed shall stand cancelled.

¶16

2 wp 3629.2025.odt

¶17

Respondent no. 1 filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’), which came to be allowed by the trial Court on the ground that since the petitioner himself was party to the sale deed, he cannot file such suit. The petitioner filed appeal against said order and along with appeal, filed application seeking injunction against respondents from interfering with the possession and further from creating third party interest. The first appellate Court allowed the application partly. The respondents were restrained from creating third party interest, however, possession has been not protected.

¶18

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner approached trial Court with categorical plea that he is in possession of the suit property. The denial of said fact is evasive and, therefore, cannot be said to be specific denial as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code.

¶19

Issue notice on petition and interim relief, returnable in three weeks.

¶20

In addition to usual mode, the petitioner shall serve the respondents through Speed Post and also through counsel appearing before the first appellate Court and shall file affidavit of service.

¶21

(Anil L. Pansare, J.)

¶22

wasnik

¶23

Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/07/2025 19:14:01

Rajesh Ninaji Nikhade v. Ajay Maniklal Udasi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Ninaji Nikhade v. Ajay Maniklal Udasi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Nirmala Bichmaiyya Kulmethe and Others vs the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Ors.

Smita W/O. Suresh Kamdi vs Suresh S/O. Deorav Kamdi

Khemchand Bherumal Bajaj Dharamshala and Hospital Trust, Thr. Managing Trustee, Dr. G. K. Bajaj vs Municipal Corporation, Amravati, Thr. Its Commissioner and Others

Jagdish Shankarlal Mehra (Dead), Thr. Lrs. vs Honble Minister, Department of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Ors.

Ashish Babarao Sardar vs the District Registrar Money Lending, Akola and Dist.Dy. Registrar Co-Op. Societies, Akola and Ors.

Mahesh @ Vivek Dnyandev Devgire vs Risod Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Risod, Washim Thr. Manager and Anr.