- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.
(2.) THIS second appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 7- 7-2006 whereby the plaintiffs' appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellants plaintiffs has been affirmed. The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of sale-deed inter alia pleading this fact that the property in dispute was agreed by the defendant No. 1 for its transfer through sale and in that context a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money was paid. The agreement for sale was executed by the defendant No. 1 and possession of the property was given to the plaintiffs. Later on, in the year 1989 the defendant No. 1 had illegally transferred the disputed property in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 through a registered sale-deed and therefore, the prayer for cancellation of said sale-deed as well as for permanent injunction was made. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 stating that she did not execute any agreement of sale as claimed, nor did she give possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiffs. She also did not receive any sum of Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiffs. The entire allegations and the facts stated in the plaint are incorrect and false. She further pleaded that she had validly transferred the property in suit to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/- and such sale-deed is not liable for cancellation. Although before transfer of the property in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the defendant No. 1 has been its owner and at no point of time any title in the property could pass in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also filed their separate written statement stating that the transfer by sale executed in their favour in respect of the suit property is a valid transaction and the plaintiffs having no title till the date of filing the suit, could not challenge the sale-deed and pray for its cancellation. The trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues and has given its finding holding that the plaintiffs did not have any title over the property nor did they ever acquire any ownership in the same by virtue of the alleged agreement of sale. The trial Court also found that the claimed possession of the plaintiffs over the property was not at all substantiated on the record and the documents filed demonstrate to the fact that it was defendant No. 1, who remained the owner and was in possession of the property till she executed the sale- deed of the same in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the year 1989. The Court also found that the agreement of sale, as alleged in the plaint, being an unregistered document, could not be taken into consideration as a valid agreement as to convey any right or title in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the suit property. The agreement being unregistered could not be legally enforced also. Since, the plaintiffs did not seek relief of its enforcement and has sought the relief for permanent injunction and cancellation of sale-deed, they having no locus for the same, could not be granted that relief. In these circumstances, the suit was found wholly without merits and was dismissed. In the appeal before the Court below, the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by it and full concurrence with the reasonings as well as the conclusion recorded in the judgment of the trial Court, have been expressed in the impugned judgment. The appellate Court too has found that no title or possession in the property at any point of time had been passed in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore they had no right to get the relief of permanent injunction with regard to the suit property nor they can get the relief of cancellation of sale-deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in respect of the property in question in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The appeal was also thus, dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants submits that the possession of the plaintiffs over the property in suit is obvious and the Courts below had not taken into consideration the agreement indicating to the facts that the defendant had received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiffs and that possession of the property was given to them at the time of execution of that agreement. From the aforesaid facts, as demonstrated from the record, it is more than evident that mere possession of the agreement of sale is not sufficient to convey any title in favour of the person holding that agreement. The property so long as it is not validly transferred through a registered instrument of sale, the title of the executant of the agreement in the same remains intact. Even if the agreement of sale, as set up by the plaintiffs, is taken to be a valid agreement, it obviously does not convey any title in plaintiffs' favour. The only right, which this document could be said to have been conveying in plaintiffs' favour, is that he might have an occasion to get this agreement enforced in accordance with law by the Court. That relief of its enforcement or its specific performance has not been sought in the present case by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the only relief, which could be visualised for being granted, if not prayed for by a party, he or she cannot stake any claim in the suit. No other relief of such person can be raised before the Court in the suit. At no point of time the plaintiffs in the present case had acquired title in the property and therefore they are not entitled to relief of permanent injunction nor they could be validly granted relief of cancellation of sale-deed. In these circumstances, the Courts below appear to be fully justified in dismissing the suit and appeal of the plaintiffs appellants. Thus, the judgments are not questionable in this second appeal.;