Suit challenging sale deeds dismissed for limitations, lack of ownership, and procedural failures

The suit challenging sale deeds executed in 1995 was held barred by limitation as it was filed in 2011. The plaintiff failed to meet the conditions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and was not the property owner, thus unable to challenge the defendants' title. The suit was dismissed for non-compliance with procedural rules, failure to claim relief in a previous suit, and lack of possession evidence. The court rejected the plaint and dismissed the suit, with costs not awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
2. Applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. Whether the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. Compliance with Order VI Rule 4(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Whether the subsequent suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Whether the plaintiff had the right to seek the declaration of sale deeds as null and void.
7. Whether the suit was maintainable without claiming the relief of possession.
8. Valuation of the suit and court fees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Barred by Limitation:
The court held that the suit filed in 2011 to challenge the sale deeds executed in 1995 was clearly barred by limitation. The period of limitation for such suits is three years, and the registration of the document serves as notice to the entire world. The court cited the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana to support this view, emphasizing that registration provides public notice and protection from fraud.

2. Applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act:
The court found that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act as the plaintiff had not performed any act in furtherance of the contract and had not shown readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Nanjegowda vs. Gangamma, which outlined the conditions necessary for invoking Section 53-A, none of which were fulfilled by the plaintiff.

3. Barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act:
The court held that the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff, not being the owner of the property, could not challenge the title of the defendants who had acquired it through registered sale deeds. The court emphasized that an agreement to sell does not confer any title, and without claiming ownership or seeking specific performance, the suit for mere declaration was not maintainable.

4. Compliance with Order VI Rule 4(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The court noted that the plaint did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Order VI Rule 4(a) of the CPC, which necessitates specific pleadings. The failure to comply with these provisions warranted the rejection of the plaint.

5. Barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The court observed that the plaintiff had filed a previous suit (Civil Suit No. 5-A/2011) regarding the same property and claims. The relief sought in the present suit could have been claimed in the previous suit, and the failure to do so barred the subsequent suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

6. Right to Seek Declaration of Sale Deeds as Null and Void:
The court held that the plaintiff, not being the title holder of the property, had no right to seek the declaration of the sale deeds as null and void. The plaintiff's claim was based on an agreement to sell, which did not confer any title, and thus, he could not challenge the title of the defendants.

7. Maintainability Without Claiming Relief of Possession:
The court found that the suit was not maintainable without claiming the relief of possession. The defendants were in possession of the property since 1995, as evidenced by the registered sale deeds and revenue records, and the plaintiff had not shown any evidence of being in possession.

8. Valuation of the Suit and Court Fees:
The court noted objections regarding the valuation of the suit and court fees. However, these objections required some evidence and were not the primary basis for the rejection of the plaint.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the suit was barred by law on multiple grounds, including limitation, non-compliance with mandatory provisions, and lack of title. The trial court had committed a jurisdictional error by not considering these objections. Consequently, the plaint was rejected, and the suit was dismissed. The civil revision was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.

---