2016 PLP 103 (YLRN)

S. 39

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 91 & 92

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. VII, R. 11

Suit for cancellation of sale deed

Limitation

Oral agreement

Past and closed transaction

Rejection of plaint

Scope

Plaintiffs had admitted the alienation of disputed house in favour of defendant-vendee through registered sale deed

Oral agreement had no legal sanctity in presence of documentary evidence

Transaction would become valid and same was binding upon the parties after execution of registered sale deed

Past and closed transaction could not be re-opened or called in question before any forum without strong, un-rebutted and plausible evidence

Plaintiffs could not wriggle out of their contractual obligation by taking advantage of oral agreement which could not be given precedence over the written agreement deed

Plaintiffs were within the knowledge of sale transaction which was got registered but they filed the present suit after lapse of more than six years which was hit by the provisions of Arts. 91 & 92 of Limitation Act, 1908

Present suit was time barred and plaintiffs had no locus standi or cause of action

Plaint was rightly rejected by the courts below

No misreading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out in the impugned judgments

Revision was dismissed in circumstances. [Paras. 6 and 7 of the judgment] ORDER MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.

This Civil Revision has arisen from judgment and decree dated 3.10.2012 whereby the learned District Judge Faisalabad dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioners against the order dated 23.6.2012 through which the learned Civil Judge Faisalabad dismissed their suit seeking cancellation of registered sale deed by invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

2. Precisely the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that petitioners filed a suit for cancellation/ invalidation of two registered sale deeds No.5740/1 dated 12.6.2003 and No.10302/1 dated 6.10.2003, according to which petitioners after receipt of full consideration of the transaction, had alienated their house in favour of Abdul Wahab Rashid (respondent No.1). It was the case of the petitioners that apart from written agreement to sell, there also existed an oral agreement between the petitioners and the vendee whereby consideration of the aforesaid house was fixed Rs.14,50,000/-, out of which only a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid whereas remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was still outstanding against respondent vendee. And for that reason the petitioners were still retaining the possession of the disputed house. In the above backdrop, the petitioners filed suit for cancellation of the aforesaid registered sale deeds.

3. Respondent vendee contested the suit and it was reiterated on his behalf that both the petitioners had appeared in person before the Sub-Registrar and got the aforesaid sale deeds registered after receipt of full amount of sale consideration. Hence, for all intents and purposes it was a legal and valid transaction causing no prejudice to the rights of either party. In the above circumstances, the learned Civil Judge seized of the lis rejected the plaint by invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners stressed upon the point that no doubt there were registered sale deeds with regard to the house in dispute whereby ownership of the house stood, transferred in favour of respondent vendee, but there also exited a parallel oral agreement inter se the parties whereby disputed house was to be alienated in favour of respondent vendee against a consideration of Rs.14,50,000/- out of which, only a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was paid to the petitioners, while remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was still outstanding against respondent vendee. It was also maintained that oral agreement was made inter se the parties in presence of witnesses, nevertheless the learned Civil Judge proceeded to reject the plaint by invoking the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on erroneous and enigmatic reasons causing irreparable loss and miscarriage of justice.

5. Conversely learned counsel for the respondent vendee supports impugned order/judgment and vehemently contends that bare perusal of the contents of the plaint clearly discredits the parallel claim of the petitioners. Adds that presumption of truth and correctness is attached to petitioners' appearance before the registration authority and valid execution/ registration of sale deeds.

6. Heard. Record perused. Record crystallizes the fact that petitioners admitted to have alienated disputed house to respondent vendee by means of two registered sale deeds. Their claim that Rs.10,00,000/- are still outstanding against respondent vendee is not substantiated on record. As per their own case, petitioners categorically mentioned in their suit that they had alienated the disputed house in favour of respondent vendee through registered sale deeds after receipt of full consideration. In presence of documentary evidence, no legal sanctity can be attached to the so called parallel oral agretement which remains insignificant and inoperative and cannot determine the right and corresponding obligation. Furthermore, relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are fully applicable. It is well established principle that after execution of registered sale deed, transaction becomes valid and binding upon the parties agreeing thereto. It being a past and closed transaction cannot be re-opened or called in question at any forum without there being exceptionally strong, un-rebutted and plausible evidence to the contrary. Petitioners cannot wriggle out of their contractual obligation by taking advantage of merely so called oral agreement which cannot be given precedence over the written agreement deeds.

7. Execution and registration of the sale deed is not denied. It is thus manifestly clear that the petitioners were well within the knowledge of the sale transaction which was got registered with the Sub-Registrar as back as in the year 2003, yet they filed the suit for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deeds after a lapse of more than six years which was hit by the provisions of Articles 91 and 92 of the First Schedule of Limitation Act 1908. The suit was hopelessly time barred and the petitioners did not have any locus standi or a cause of action. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court was legally justified in rejecting the plaint of the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. which order was rightly upheld by the learned appellate court. The suit of the petitioners was palpably vexatious and frivolous, hence, the learned Judge of the appellate court meticulously and justifiably imposed costs upon the petitioners. In absence of any ambiguity, misreading, non-reading of evidence, no case for interference with impugned judgment is made out. This petition being devoid of any merit calls for no interference and is accordingly dismissed with costs. ZC/M-27/L Revision dismissed.