Dismissed

Sahana Begum v. Anju Sharma

Delhi HC9 Mar 2016CM(M)/234/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court held that a Registered Agreement to Sell does not confer title and that in a suit for permanent injunction, possessory nature is relevant, not title. Consequently, the impugned order requires no interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

Sahana Begum Vs Anju Sharma — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~37

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CM(M) 234/2016 & C.M. No.8691/2016 (stay)

¶4

SAHANA BEGUM ..... Petitioner Through Mr.M.P.Singh and Ms. Mumtaz Hashmi, Advocates. versus ANJU SHARMA ..... Respondent Through Nemo.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR O R D E R % 09.03.2016

¶6

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2016 wherein his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed. Submission is that the suit for permanent injunction was liable to be disposed of in view of the averments contained in the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as in the plaint itself, it has been admitted by the plaintiff that there is a registered agreement to sell qua the suit property in favour of defendant no.1 Attention has been drawn to that averment.

¶7

The facts disclose that the present suit is a suit for permanent injunction which has been filed by the plaintiff against four CM(M) 234/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶8

defendants. Petitioner before this Court is defendant no.1. Contention of the petitioner is that the prayer in the suit is a prayer for permanent injunction. Needless to state that in a suit for permanent injunction, title of the suit property is not a question which has to be gone into. The proposition at law on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is also clear; it is only the averments made in the plaint which have to be looked into; the defence of the defendant cannot be gone into.

¶9

In the averments made in the plaint, although the registered agreement to sell has been admited by the plaintiff qua defendant no.1 yet the contention is that this agreement was entered into by a fraud which has been played upon the plaintiff. The details of the earlier litigation pending between the parties have also been detailed in the plaint. Further contention of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit property in her own right and she should not be dispossessed. At the cost of repetition, this Court notes that the Trial Court in a suit for injunction will not go into the question of title.

¶10

In this background, the submission of the petitioner (defefendant in the Trial Court) that the suit is liable to be rejected straightway as the plaintiff herself had admitted that there is a registered agreement to sell in favour of defendant no.1 is an argument bereft of merit. Admittedly, even if there is a registered agreement to sell that will not convey a title in immovable property. In a suit for permanent injunction title is also not relevant, it is the possessory nature of the property which is relevant.

¶11

CM(M) 234/2016

¶12

Page 2 of 3

¶13

In this background, the impugned order which was passed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in view of the specific averments made in the plaint, is an order which calls for no infterference. This petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

¶14

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶15

MARCH 09, 2016 ndn

¶16

Page 3 of 3

¶17

CM(M) 234/2016

Sahana Begum v. Anju Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahana Begum v. Anju Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Davinder Singh Vs Bhagat Raj

The Executive Engineers & Anr. Vs Charanpreet Kaur & Ors.

Gurudawara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Vs Charanjit Singh Bhasin

Gurudawara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Vs Charanjit Singh Bhasin

M/S Vinod Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kushagr Ansal

Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors. Vs Indu Rohtagi & Anr.

Hdfc Bank Limited Vs S S Bhatia

Pushpa Maini Vs Ravinder Kumar Cahdha & Ors.

Davinder Singh Vs Bhagat Raj

The Executive Engineers & Anr. Vs Charanpreet Kaur & Ors.

Dinesh Bajaj Vs Panna Devi

Ghosiya Mobeen Vs Niyaz Ali & Ors.

M/S Tsi Yatra Private Limited Vs Rahul Nath