# Janki Devi Defendant/ v. Subhash Chandra & Ors - **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 746 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-09-19 - **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 365 of 2019 - **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/janki-devi-defendant-v-subhash-chandra-ors-44944 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Civil Law-Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 19(c) - Subsequent purchaser could not raise challenge to the findings regarding the readiness and willingness. Held: - Defendant no. 2 - the appellant, who was a purchaser during the subsistence of the agreement to sell, could not raise the issue about the fact as to whether the findings regarding the readiness and willingness were correct as she was not required to execute the sale deed but was a purchaser of the property after the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant had been entered into. When the agreement to sell was a registered agreement to sell then the there was a presumption that the defendant no. 2 always knew about the agreement to sell. Second Appeal dismissed (E-5) List of Cases Cited: - 1.N.P. Thirugnanam (dead) by Lrs. Vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & ors. 1995 (5) SCC 115. ## Text 746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 80. The judgment and decree dated 26.03.1998 and 07.04.1998 rendered by the learned II-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bansi, Siddharth Nagar in Original Suit No. 295 of 1980, Kedar Nath Vs. Ganga Prasad Rai and another, are affirmed to the extent indicated in this judgment. 81. The second appeal is allowed. ---------- (2019)11ILR A746 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. Second Appeal No. 365 of 2019 Janki Devi ...Defendant/Appellant Versus Subhash Chandra & Ors. ...Plaintiffs/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ram Milan Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.K. Baranwal A. Civil Law-Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 19(c) - Subsequent purchaser could not raise challenge to the findings regarding the readiness and willingness. Held: - Defendant no. 2 - the appellant, who was a purchaser during the subsistence of the agreement to sell, could not raise the issue about the fact as to whether the findings regarding the readiness and willingness were correct as she was not required to execute the sale deed but was a purchaser of the property after the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant had been entered into. When the agreement to sell was a registered agreement to sell then the there was a presumption that the defendant no. 2 always knew about the agreement to sell. Second Appeal dismissed (E-5) List of Cases Cited: - 1.N.P. Thirugnanam (dead) by Lrs. Vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & ors. 1995 (5) SCC 115. 2. Jugraj Singh & anr. Vs Labh Singh & ors. AIR 1995 SC 945 (Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth Varma, J.) 1. A suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent no. 1 against one Buddhiram with a prayer that the defendant Buddhiram be directed to execute a sale deed and to handover possession of the property regarding which an agreement to sell was entered into between the defendant Buddhiram and the plaintiff on 21.4.1992. The plaint allegations were that the defendant had taken Rs. 35,000/- as an advance on 21.4.1992 and had also entered into an agreement that he would after taking the remaining Rs. 5,000/- execute a sale deed within a year in favour of the plaintiff. When the defendant did not execute the sale deed and the year was coming to an end on 30.3.1993 a notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant Buddhiram that he may appear on 15.4.1993 before the Office of Registrar to execute the sale deed. The defendant filed his written submission and stated that, in fact, no agreement to sell was entered into and the defendant had only taken Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff by way of a loan. He did not ever enter into any agreement to sell his property. 2. It appears that when the plaintiff came to know about some sale deed 3 All. Janki Devi Vs. Subhash Chandra & Ors. 747 having been there in existence dated 21.10.1993 by which the defendant no. 1 had allegedly sold the property in question to the defendant no. 2 then he amended the plaint and stated that the defendant no. 2 and her husband were always in the know about the registered agreement dated 21.4.1993 and, therefore, the plaintiff's right would not get affected. 3. The Trial Court framed as many as 7 issues and decreed the suit and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within thirty days. The defendant filed a First Appeal which was when dismissed on 10.12.2018, the instant Second Appeal was filed by the defendant no. 2. 4. The plaintiff was represented by his counsel Sri V.K. Baranwal before this Court. The appellant who was the defendant no. 2 in the Suit and had alleged a purchase from the defendant no. 1 by a sale deed dated 21.10.1993 has vehemently argued that there was no specific finding of readiness and willingness as was mandatory under Section 19(c) of the Specific Relief Act and has relied upon judgements reported in 1995 (5) SCC 115 (N.P. Thirugnanam (dead) by Lrs. vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and others) and AIR 1995 SC 945(Jugraj Singh and another v. Labh Singh and others). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further made his submissions with regard to the other substantial questions of which he had framed and submitted that the agreement was not proved properly. He further submitted that any admission made in the reply to the notice could not be treated as an admission and took recourse to Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act. He also denied any presumption of notice under the explanation I of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. Learned counsel for the caveator, however, submitted that there were enough findings to reveal that the plaintiff was always ready and willing. What is more, he submitted that it did not lie in the mouth of the defendant no. 2 (the appellant here) to question the readiness and willingness of the appellant as she was not the defendant who was required to execute the sale deed but was a purchaser of the property after the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant had been entered into. She had also no right to raise the issue with regard to the finding regarding the admission of the defendant no. 1. The counsel for the caveator / plaintiff submitted that no interference be made with regard to the findings as had been arrived at by the two courts of law. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffcaveator also submitted that when the agreement to sell dated 21.4.1992 was a registered agreement to sell then the there was a presumption that the defendant no. 2 and her husband always knew about the agreement to sell. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent no.2 and learned counsel for the caveator/the plaintiff, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this case. What is more, the defendant no. 2 the appellant who was a purchaser during the subsistence of the agreement to sell could not raise the issue about the fact as to whether the findings regarding the readiness and willingness were correct. 748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 9. In this view of the matter, the Second Appeal which is concluded by findings of fact requires no interference. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------- (2019)11ILR A748 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJIV JOSHI, J. Second Appeal No. 520 of 2017 Ram Babu ...Defendant/Appellant Versus Raj Bahadur & Anr. ...Plaintiffs/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Pravesh Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Nigamendra Shukla A. Civil Law-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC - Rejection of plaint as barred by limitation - Only plaint averments have to be seen. Held:- Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. While considering Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C, only plaint averments have to be seen. It is the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. The stand of the defendant in the written statement or in the application for rejection of plaint is wholly immaterial at that stage. Document filed by defendant at pretrial stage is not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding, the issue regarding rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. (Para 19, 20) B. Practice and Procedure - Maintainability - Dismissal of a suit at Pre-trial stage on the ground of maintainability - Court may even look into those documents furnished by the defendants. Held:- For dismissal of the suit on a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit, the court is entitled and liable to look into all documents including those furnished by the defendants. (Para 21) Second Appeal dismissed (E-5) List of Cases Cited: - 1.Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & ors. Vs Lala J.R. Education Society & ors. 2012 (121) ALR. 2. P.V. Guru Reddy Vs Neeradha Reddy (2015) 8 SCC 331 (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi, J.) 1. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2017 passed by the additional District Judge Court No.14, Allahabad in First Appeal No. 301 of 2013 (Raj Bahadur Vs. Rama Bai Trust and Others) whereby the appeal was allowed. The lower appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree has set aside the judgment and decree dated 4.3.2013 passed by the trial judge in Original Suit No.722 of 2009 ( Raj Bahadur Vs. Ramabai Trust); decided Issue no. 7 in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. 2. The relevant facts for consideration in the present appeal are that one Smt. Latifanbai @ Rama Bai had