# M/s Sai Dham Apartments & Anr v. Ravi Kumar Mehrotra & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 140
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-22
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 928 of 2020
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-sai-dham-apartments-anr-v-ravi-kumar-mehrotra-ors-54047
- **Pages:** 31

## Text

_Characters 0–39,931 of 111,524. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39931 for what follows._

140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. This Court, in view of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after
perusal of the entire record is setting aside the order dated 20.08.2025 and remits the matter to the
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Agra with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the
proposed accused persons as per Section 223 first proviso of BNSS and thereafter pass an order
either under Section 226 or under Section 227 BNSS against the accused-applicants and proceed
further in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, the application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

8. The trial court is directed to complete all necessary formalities within a period of two
months from the date of this order.

9. This Court makes it clear that if any remark is made against the presiding officer, the same
shall not affect the service as well as career of the concerned presiding officer in future.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 140
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 928 of 2020

M/s Sai Dham Apartments & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Ravi Kumar Mehrotra & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the trial court was justified in refusing to grant temporary injunction to the
plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction under O. 39 R. 1 CPC based on an unstamped and unregistered
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and whether such order suffered from perversity, arbitrariness, or
legal infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction under O. 43 R. 1(r) CPC.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. 7 R. 14, O. 13 R. 1, O. 39 R. 1 and 2, O. 43 R. 1(r), s.151 -
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 41 (h) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - ss. 8, 11 -
Registration Act, 1908 - s. 17 - Enforceability of MOU - Ad-interim Injunction - The dispute
emanates from an alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between the
plaintiffs - Appellants and the defendant landowners in respect of certain immovable property,
whereby the plaintiffs claimed to have been authorised to undertake construction of a multistoreyed complex with a stipulated sharing arrangement of the saleable area - The plaintiffs
asserted that pursuant to the MOU they had invested substantial sums towards obtaining
statutory permissions, marketing, and project development, and that the landowners, in breach
of the agreed terms, entered into a separate builder agreement with a third party, thereby
threatening to defeat the plaintiffs' contractual and commercial interests - The defendants,
however, denied the execution and enforceability of MOU, contending that it was unstamped and
unregistered, conferred no right, title, or interest in the property, and at best created a limited
1 All. M/s Sai Dham Apartments & Anr. Vs. Ravi Kumar Mehrotra & Ors.
141
license without transfer of possession - The plaintiffs instituted a suit before the trial court
seeking permanent injunction simpliciter to restrain interference with the alleged rights under
the MOU, without seeking specific performance or declaration, and moved an application for
temporary injunction, which was rejected by the trial court, giving rise to the instant first
appeal before the High Court. (E-11)
Held: It is apparent that, the trial court has not erred in concluding that the alleged MOU has not been
executed by all the landowners, as such, no relief can be claimed on its basis against those landowners who
have not executed it - The trial court has not erred in concluding that since the MOU was unstamped and
unregistered, it was inadmissible in evidence and further, it does not confer any right, title and interest in the
disputed land in the plaintiffs, on the basis of which no enforceable legal right accrues to them and relief of
injunction cannot be granted to them against the true owners - The trial court has rightly concluded that the
plaintiffs have not claimed the specific performance of the alleged MOU, whereas in reality, they are enforcing
it in the garb of the suit for the relief of permanent injunction - The question of return of money by
landowners is a disputed question of fact which can only be decided after evidence but prima-facie the trial
court was of the opinion, that keeping in view the admission of the plaintiffs in their rejoinder affidavit, the
land owners have returned substantial money to the plaintiffs - The trial court recorded a perverse prima facie
finding of lack of jurisdiction in view of arbitration clause in the alleged MOU, however, it did not reject the
plaint, and thus the said finding does not materially affect the outcome - The record further discloses that five
issues were framed on 08.01.2021 based on the pleadings, none pertaining to non-maintainability of the suit
on the ground of being barred by provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, thereby indicating that
the observation regarding the statutory bar was merely incidental and neither pleaded nor pressed by the
defendant landowners - Accordingly, no perversity in impugned order, thus, dismissed with costs. [Paras 69 to
74, 76]

Case Law Cited
Uday Pratap v. Digamber Singh 2013 SCC OnLine All 8292; K.Kasturi and others v.C. Mohan and others
2007(1) Law Weekly 560 (Madras); Rolta Infrastructure and Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Department
of Information Technology and Electronics, Government of West Bengal 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 105; M/s
Ashoka Builders & Promoters and another v. M/s Edward Keventer (Successors) P.Ltd. and others 1993
(26)DRJ 489; Sardar Balbir Singh v. Atma Ram Srivastava 1976 SCC OnLine All 374 (Full Bench);
 Anathula Sudhakar v.P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs.& ors. (2008) 4 SCC 594; Vinod Kumar and others v.
Sudha Land Ventures and Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2015(8)ADJ 387(DB); Subash Chand Garg and others v. Messers
HKS Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others, Civil Revision no. 111 of 2015 decided on 5.6.2020; Subash
Chand Garg and others v. Messers HKS Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others, FAFO no.290 of 2015 decided on
21.12.2016; Kapil Kumar Sharma v. Lalit Kumar Sharma and another (2013)14 SCC 612; The interplay
between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, IN RE
(2024) 6 SCC 1 (By 7 Judges); Yellapu Uma Maheshwari and another v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and
others (2015) 16 SCC 787; Sita Ram Bhama vs Ramvatar Bhama (2018) 15 SCC 130; Salim Baig v.
Sayyad Nawid 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2819; Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth(Wright) Issar and others
(2018) 7 SCC 639 (By 3 Judges); Vinod Kumar and others v. Sudha Land Ventures and Homes Pvt.Ltd.
2015 SCC OnLine All 8778; ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd. (2002) 5 SCC 510;
Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011)5 SCC 532; Gitarani Maity v. Krishna
Chakraborty and Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 2462; Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Thr. LRS. v.
Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Thr. LRS. And others (2022) 12 SCC 128 - referred to

Wander Ltd. and another v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. 1990 Supp SCC 727; Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish
Ambalal Choksi and others 2024 INSC 913 - followed

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Registration Act, 1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
First Appeal; Registered partnership firm; Disputed property; Discretionary relief; Temporary injunction;
Promotional activities; Memorandum of Understanding; Permanent injunction; Injunction simplicitor; Specific
performance; Declaration of title; Residential complex; Residential flats/houses; s. 41(h) of Specific Relief Act;
Unstamped instrument; Unregistered document; Inadmissible in evidence; Impounding of agreement;
Collateral purpose; Relinquishment of rights; Compulsorily registrable document; License; Right, title and
interest; Possession of disputed land; Bar of jurisdiction; Arbitration clause; Arbitration agreement; Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, Status quo; Dismissed on merits; Interim order vacated; Affirmation of trial court's
order.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From Order No. - 928 of 2020

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.2020 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad
in O.S. No. 342 of 2019.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Anjali Goklani, Manish Goyal (Senior Adv.), Nikhil Mishra

Adv. for the Respondent:
A.K. Upadhyay, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Misra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC
against the impugned order dated 13.3.2020 passed by the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division),
Allahabad in O.S. No. 342 of 2019 Messers Sai Dham Apartments and another Vs. Ravi Kumar
Mehrotra and others, whereby plaintiffs interim injunction application no. 6-C under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 CPC has been rejected.

Plaint Case

2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff appellant filed O.S. No. 342 of 2019 in the lower court
with the averments that the plaintiff no.1 Messers Sai Dham Apartments is a registered partnership
firm and Rajesh Kumar Gupta is its Chief Executive Officer. Plaintiff no. 2 Messers Paras
Presidency is also a registered partnership firm of which Sanjiv Jain is a partner.

3. It was further averred that freehold plot numbers YY/1,YY/2,YY/3 and YY/4, the details of
which were mentioned in the plaint, the combined area of which was described as letters ABCD in
the plaint map, hereinafter called the disputed land, was owned by Puran Chand Mehrotra,
defendant no.1 Ravi Kumar Mehrotra and defendant no.2 Smt. Rashmi Mehrotra along with the
house existing thereon. It was further averred that the above owners of the land, used to run
Volkswagen car showroom on it and a workshop was also situated on this land. Puran Chand
Mehrotra, was the father of Ravi Kumar Mehrotra and father-in-law of Smt. Rashmi Mehrotra, who
died on 15.3.2017. It was averred that at present the defendant no.1 & 2 are the owners of the
disputed property.
1 All. M/s Sai Dham Apartments & Anr. Vs. Ravi Kumar Mehrotra & Ors.
143

4. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that the above land owners were interested to raise a
multi-storey residential complex over their aforesaid plot measuring 3251.29 m, the details of
which have been mentioned at the foot of the plaint and which was earmarked by letters ABCD in
the plaint map. It was further averred that the plaintiff no.1 firm is a builder and the above land
owners negotiated with it through its Chief Executive Officer/Partner Rajesh Kumar Gupta to raise
multi storeyed residential complex over the said land, who gave a proposal on behalf of plaintiff
no.1, to construct the multi-storeyed residential complex on the said land of the aforesaid owners
investing the money of the plaintiff no.1. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that the land
owners agreed and accepted the proposal of the plaintiff no.1.

5. It was further averred that the above land owners namely late Puran Chand Mehrotra, Ravi
Kumar Mehrotra and Smt. Rashmi Mehrotra entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
on 30.3.2014 with plaintiff No.2, which is a firm promoted by plaintiff no.1 , to raise multi storeyed
residential complex over the disputed land and on behalf of all the land owners, the MOU was
signed by Ravi Kumar Mehrotra. The MOU included the heirs, executors and assignees of the land
owners and the plaintiffs.

6. It was further averred that before executing the said MOU, the land owners had received ₹ 2
crores from the plaintiffs, the details of which were provided in the plaint. The proposed residential
flats/houses were to be constructed by the plaintiffs as per plan sanctioned by Allahabad
Development Authority(ADA), Allahabad now Prayagraj Development Authority(PDA). It was
further averred that the plaintiff no.2 paid ₹ 68,58,370/-to the ADA for sanction and approval of the
map which was also acknowledged by the ADA. It was further averred that till the date of filing of
the suit, the plaintiffs have invested approximately ₹ 3.53 crores in furtherance of constructing
multi storeyed complex on the disputed land, the payment details of which were mentioned in the
plaint. It was further averred that the map was to be proved and sanctioned in the name of the
above land owners, hence the demand notice dated 15.10.2015 by ADA, was sent to land owners
which was given to plaintiff no.1, upon which the plaintiff no.2 paid the amount to ADA from its
bank account. It was further averred that the plaintiff no.2 paid ₹ 3,77,869/- to the Nagar Nigam for
NOC on 7.4.2017 and Rs. 1,62,569/- to Jalkal Vibhag for NOC on 31.10.2015.The plaintiffs
obtained NOC dated 18.12.2015 from S.P. traffic, fire department and electricity department, in
part performance of the above mentioned MOU.

7. It was further averred that the land owners, after the aforesaid payment to the ADA for
approval of the map, also gave the physical possession to the plaintiffs, which was acknowledged
by defendant no.1 by giving an affidavit, which was in part performance of the said MOU. It was
further averred that for raising multi storeyed residential complex on the disputed land, the
plaintiffs established the office on the red portion which was specified by letter EFGH in the plaint
map, which was earlier used as workshop of Volkswagen car agency.

8. It was further averred that the plaintiffs gave the work order to Mahtab Ahmad, contractor
for demolition on the disputed land, which was completed in the month of March 2019 and the
disputed land was being used for promotional activities by the plaintiffs. It was further averred that
for project publicity, the plaintiffs got printed the brochure and have also given advertisement in
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
newspapers and have also booked the flats and have received advance payment from the
prospective purchasers of the flats on 31.10.2015 and 23.11.2015.

9. It was further averred that the defendant no. 3 have got no concern with the disputed land,
who filed his own map for revision of the original map already sanctioned on 5.10.2015, due to
which the map submitted by the plaintiffs could not be finally sanctioned and approved. The
plaintiffs filed objection dated 28.6.2019 against the revision of the map. It was averred that the
construction of proposed multi storeyed residential complex on the disputed land could not be
started because the defendant no.3 submitted his own map for revision and objection of the
plaintiffs was pending for disposal. It was averred that defendant no.3 was a powerful and
influential person, who was threatening to interfere in the promotional activities of the plaintiffs on
the disputed land, who has also threatened to dismantle the office of the plaintiffs existing on the
place shown by letter EFGH and IJAB in the plaint map, who has threatened to remove the flex
board signage of the plaintiffs existing on the place shown by the letters UV, who was also
threatening to get printed his own brochure for the publicity, hence the plaintiffs were compelled to
file the suit. The plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs :-

By means of permanent injunction the defendant no.3, his agents, servants and associates
be restrained from doing any sort of promotional activities on the suit land, be restrained from
interfering in promotional activities of the plaintiffs over the suit land, be restrained from
demolishing the office of the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 & 2, be restrained from doing any sort of
negotiation with the defendant no.3, regarding raising of multi storeyed residential complex over
the suit land, and be restrained from entering into an MOU or builder agreement or any sort of
agreement with any other third party with regard to construction of residential complex on the suit
land.

Written Statement of Defendants

10. The defendants in their Written Statement have admitted that they are the owner of the
disputed land on which a showroom and service centre of Volkswagen was situated, which was not
operational. It was averred that after the death of Puran Chand Mehrotra, defendant no.1 and 2
along with daughter Rashmi Kapoor are his heirs.

11. It was averred that the defendants were interested in getting the multi storeyed residential
complex constructed on the disputed land. It was further averred that the alleged MOU dated
30.3.2014 was a forged and fabricated document, on the basis of which the instant suit was not
legally maintainable. It was averred that the alleged map was sanctioned in the name of defendants
regarding which no advantage could be taken by the plaintiffs. It was further averred that the
defendants have returned an amount of Rs.1.31 crores to the plaintiffs. It was further averred that
the defendants have returned the amount deposited by the plaintiffs with the ADA. The defendants
accepted that a payment of Rs.3,77,869/- was made by plaintiff no. 2 to Nagar Nigam and
Rs.1,62,569/- to Jalkal Vibhag but the above amounts were refunded to the plaintiffs, by them,as
per the agreed terms and conditions. The possession of the plaintiffs on the disputed land was
denied by the defendants. It was averred that the defendants were in possession of the disputed
property. It was further averred that no construction whatsoever is existing on the disputed land. It
1 All. M/s Sai Dham Apartments & Anr. Vs. Ravi Kumar Mehrotra & Ors.
145
was averred that the plaintiffs have malafidely launched a fraudulent scheme for extorting money
in the garb of selling alleged flats constructed on the disputed land, for which the defendants are
not bound.

12. The defendants averred that the plaintiffs in order to usurp the disputed land entered into a
builder agreement but the MOU dated 30.3.2014 was not prepared accordingly, hence the
defendants have returned the advance money given by the plaintiffs. It was averred that defendant
no.1 has returned an amount of Rs. one crore, as well as, the amount deposited by the plaintiffs
with PDA, and inspite of this, for blackmailing and harassing the defendants, the plaintiffs have
filed the suit on the basis of an alleged MOU, which was not legally maintainable. The plaintiffs
are not in possession of the disputed property, as such, the suit was barred under Section 34, 38 and
41 of the Specific Relief Act. The disputed property was valued at about ₹ 20 crores as such, the
plaintiffs have insufficiently valued the suit and consequently, inadequate amount of court fees has
been paid. With these submissions, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was liable to be
dismissed.

Ad-interim injunction application

13. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed an ad interim injunction application no.
6-C under Order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the defendant no.3 and his
agents, servants and associates from doing any sort of promotional activities on the suit land, for
restraining him from interfering in promotional activities of the plaintiffs over the suit land and also
for restraining him from demolishing the office of the plaintiffs and for restraining the defendant
no.1 and 2 from doing any sort of negotiation with the defendant no. 3 regarding raising of multi
storeyed residential complex on the disputed land and from also restraining them from entering into
an MOU or builder agreement or any sort of agreement with any other third party with regard to
construction of residential complex on the disputed land, till the pendency of the suit, which was
supported by affidavit 7-C of Rajesh Kumar Gupta, which reiterated all the grounds taken earlier in
the plaint.

14. The defendants opposed the ad-interim injunction application of the plaintiffs by filing
objection (paper no.14-C) supported by affidavit (paper no.15-C) of defendant no.1 Ravi Kumar
Mehrotra, in which all the averments of the written statement were reiterated. It was further averred
that after cancellation of the deal with the plaintiffs, for raising constructions on the disputed land,
as per the sanctioned building plan, NOC was obtained from the concerned departments, in the
name of defendants, not plaintiffs. It was further averred that the defendants have never
acknowledged that the possession of the disputed land has been handed to the plaintiffs. It was
further averred that no alleged construction was existing on the disputed land, the disputed land
was lying vacant. It was further averred that neither the prima-facie case nor balance of
convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and if, plaintiffs ad-interim injunction application was
not rejected, the defendants shall suffer irreparable loss.

15. The plaintiffs in the rejoinder affidavit have accepted that in the month of March 2019,
with the consent of the land owners, through contractor Mehtab Ahmed, the Volkswagen
showroom, service centre and workshop standing on the disputed land have been demolished. It has
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also been accepted by the plaintiffs that Rashmi Kapoor is the daughter of late Puran Chand
Mehrotra, but it was averred that till Puran Chand Mehrotra was alive, there was no share of
Rashmi Kapoor in the disputed land. It was averred that the plaintiffs have in all spent an amount of
₹ 3.53 crores on the disputed land, which has not been returned by the landowners. It was further
averred that a personal loan of Rs. 1,97,30,000/- for purchasing the land was taken by defendant
no.1 and 2 and their son Rohan from Rajesh Kumar Gupta and an amount of ₹ 1.46 crores has been
returned by the above defendants, towards repayment of that loan. It was further averred that
defendant no. 1 and 2 have received an amount of Rs. 2.60 crores from defendant no.3 on
12.6.2019, who were trying to make the MOU infructuous, and if they succeed in doing so, then the
purpose of filing the instant suit shall be frustrated.

Reasoning of Trial Court

16. The trial court by impugned order has concluded that the alleged MOU was executed
between the plaintiffs, defendant no.1,2 and Puran Chand Mehrotra but it has only been signed on
behalf of plaintiff by Rajesh Kumar Gupta and defendant no.1 Ravi Kumar Mehrotra. It was further
concluded that at the time of the alleged execution of MOU, Puran Chand Mehrotra was alive but
inspite of being the owner, he has not signed the MOU. Besides this, defendant no.2 Rashmi
Mehrotra has also not signed it. It was further concluded that the plaintiffs have sought injunction
on the basis of alleged MOU against all the owners of the disputed land, but the alleged MOU does
not bear the signature of all the land owners, as such, it cannot be enforced against those land
owner, who have not signed it. It was further concluded that since the MOU was not signed by all
the land owners, hence there was no consent on the part of all the land owners regarding the alleged
MOU, as such, the MOU cannot be enforced against all the owners.

17. The trial court further concluded that even if, it is assumed that an MOU was indeed
executed between the parties on 30.3.2014, even then the MOU contains an arbitration clause in
para no.30, according to which, in case of dispute between the parties, the dispute will be resolved
by an arbitrator, who will be appointed with consent of the parties, and the provisions of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will be applicable on such proceedings. The trial court
concluded that prima-facie in view of the above arbitration agreement, the trial court had no
jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

18. The trial court further concluded that as per para-33 of the MOU, it was the bounden duty
of the builder to get the MOU registered but it has not been registered, which amounts to violation
of the terms and conditions of the MOU. It was further concluded that the alleged MOU was not
duly stamped as per the provisions of the Stamp Act and in view of this, prima-facie there was no
force in MOU.

19. The trial court further concluded that the plaintiffs have accepted that defendant no. 1 and
2 are the real owners of the disputed land, against whom, injunction cannot be granted. The trial
court further concluded that as per para 8 of the MOU, the alleged possession of the plaintiffs was
of a licensee only for construction purposes, which created no right or interest in the favour of
builder, which merely granted permission to the plaintiffs for undertaking construction in the
1 All. M/s Sai Dham Apartments & Anr. Vs. Ravi Kumar Mehrotra & Ors.
147
disputed land, which cannot be treated as the settled possession of the plaintiffs and due to this
reason, the plaintiffs were also prima-facie not in possession of the disputed land.

20. The trial court further concluded that the plaintiffs have sought the relief of restraining
defendant no.1 and 2 from entering into any agreement with third-party which in reality amounts to
enforcement of alleged MOU but they have not sought any relief for its specific performance,
whereas, prima-facie the plaintiffs are neither the owner nor in possession of the disputed land and
the alleged MOU does not create any binding and legally enforceable agreement between the
parties.

21. It was further concluded by the trial court that the plaintiffs in the rejoinder affidavit have
accepted that they have received back the money from the defendants but it was submitted by the
plaintiffs that it related to return of the personal loan taken from Rajesh Kumar Gupta, by defendant
no.1, for purchasing the land. On the basis of the above admission of the plaintiffs, the trial court
concluded that prima-facie the money has been returned by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The
trial court concluded that whether the returned money was personal loan, it will be decided after
evidence of the parties. The trial court also concluded that since the defendants were not paid any
amount from the bank account of the plaintiff firms, as such there was no requirement for the
defendants to return the amount to the plaintiff firms bank account.

22. In view of the above reasons assigned by the trial court, the plaintiffs ad interim injunction
application no.6-C was dismissed, aggrieved against which, the plaintiffs have filed the instant
appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

Submissions of learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant

23. Learned senior counsel Shri Manish Goyal for the plaintiff-appellants submitted that an
MOU was executed between the parties, according to which residential flats for housing purposes
was to be constructed by the plaintiffs on the disputed land of the defendant no.1 and 2 and as per
the terms and conditions of the MOU, the plaintiffs had also paid an amount of about Rs.2 crores to
the defendant no.1 and 2 and in part performance of the MOU, the plaintiffs are also in possession
of the disputed land but still, the trial court has held otherwise. It was further submitted that the
MOU does not create any right in the disputed land because the ownership of the disputed land
remains with the defendants, hence the MOU was not required to be registered in accordance with
the provisions of the Registration Act, but the trial court has held otherwise. It was further
submitted that since the parties had acted in terms of the MOU, there was no reason to doubt its
execution and existence, but the trial court has held otherwise. It was further submitted that if the
defendants managed to create third-party rights in the disputed land and enter into any builder
agreement with third-party, to raise construction on the disputed land, then it will seriously
prejudice the plaintiffs because they have invested a lot of money on the marketing of the proposed
flats which are to be constructed on the disputed land, which has not been refunded by the land
owners. It was further submitted that the trial court has misappreciated the above facts and has
wrongly rejected the plaintiffs ad interim injunction application. In support of his submissions
learned Counsel has relied upon the following case law :-
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) Uday Pratap vs.Digamber Singh 2013 SCC OnLine All 8292.

(2) K.Kasturi and others vs.C. Mohan and others 2007(1)Law Weekly 560(Madras).

(3) Rolta Infrastructure and Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Department of Information
Technology and Electronics, Government of West Bengal 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 105.

(4) The interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899, IN RE (2024) 6 SCC 1 (by 7 Judges).

(5) M/s Ashoka Builders & Promoters and another vs.M/s Edward Keventer (Successors)
P.Ltd. and others 1993 (26) DRJ 489.

(6) Sardar Balbir Singh vs.Atma Ram Srivastava 1976 SCC OnLine All 374(Full Bench).

Submissions of learned counsel for defendant respondents

24. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents submitted that the impugned
order of the trial court is perfectly legal and justified. It was submitted that the alleged MOU was
not signed by all the owners of the disputed property, which was also not produced in original
before the trial court, which was the basis of the suit filed by the plaintiffs, which allegedly created
rights in favour of the plaintiffs but it was not duly stamped and registered in accordance with the
provisions of the Stamp Act and Registration Act, as such, the trial court has not erred in not
relying upon it for granting any relief to the plaintiffs. It was further submitted that the defendant
no.1 and 2 are the real owners of the disputed land against whom the relief of injunction cannot be
granted. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs have neither sought any relief for the specific
performance of the MOU nor sought any declaration regarding its legal enforceability on the land
owners and have only claimed the relief of simplicitor permanent injunction, as such, the suit was
not legally maintainable in the absence of any relief of specific performance and declaration. It was
further submitted that the plaintiffs are also not in possession of the disputed land as such, neither
any prima-facie case nor any balance of convenience lies in their favour hence, the trial court has
not erred in rejecting the plaintiffs ad interim injunction application, which requires no interference
from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel in support of his
submission has relied upon the following case law :-

(1) Anathula Sudhakar vs.P.Buchi Reddy(Dead) by LRs.& ors. (2008) 4 SCC 594.

(2) Vinod Kumar and others vs.Sudha Land Ventures and Homes Pvt. Ltd. 2015(8)ADJ
387(DB).

(3) Civil Revision no. 111 of 2015 Subash Chand Garg and others vs. Messers HKS
Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others decided on 5.6.2020 by Single Judge Bench of this Court.

(4) FAFO no.290 of 2015 Subash Chand Garg and others vs. Messers HKS Developers
Pvt. Ltd. and others decided on 21.12.2016 by Division Bench of this Court.

25. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides, perused the impugned order, the record
of the lower court and the case law submitted by them.

Conclusion of this Court

Execution of MOU between the parties
1 All. M/s Sai Dham Apartments & Anr. Vs. Ravi Kumar Mehrotra & Ors.
149

26. The plaintiffs contended that regarding the disputed land an MOU was executed between
the land owners and the plaintiffs on 30.3.2014, a copy of which has been filed by the plaintiffs in
the original suit, which has been denied by the defendants in their written statement. It was further
submitted by the defendants that at the time of the execution of the alleged MOU on 30.3.2014, the
ownership of disputed land vested in Puran Chand Mehrotra, Ravi Kumar Mehrotra and Smt.
Rashmi Mehrotra but from the perusal of the MOU submitted by the plaintiffs before the court, it
was apparent that it was only signed by defendant no.1 Ravi Kumar Mehrotra , as such it was not
binding and cannot be enforced against all the land owners.

27. It is apparent that the plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that the ownership of the disputed
land vested in Puran Chand Mehrotra, Ravi Kumar Mehrotra and Smt. Rashmi Mehrotra, which is
also apparent from the photo copy of sale deeds of disputed property filed by the plaintiffs in the
original suit, but it is hard to understand why the MOU was not signed by Puran Chand Mehrotra
and Smt. Rashmi Mehrotra. It is further apparent that no power-of-attorney has been executed by
the other owners in favour of the defendant no.1 Ravi Kumar Mehrotra, authorising him to execute
an MOU on their behalf. It is also apparent that Puran Chand Mehrotra has died intestate on
15.3.2017, leaving behind defendant no.1 Ravi Kumar Mehrotra (son) and Rashmi
Kapoor(daughter), as legal heirs. It is apparent that in the absence of any Will, Rashmi Kapoor has
also inherited 1/2 share of the deceased in the disputed property, but no MOU has been executed
between Rashmi Kapoor and the plaintiffs, regarding the disputed property. In view of the above
facts, it is hard to understand how regarding the disputed land, which belongs to defendant no.1,2
and Rashmi Kapoor, an MOU, which has not been signed by defendant no.2, Puran Chand
Mehrotra and Rashmi Kapoor, can be legally enforced.

Non-filing of original MOU

28. It is further apparent that the plaintiffs have not filed the original MOU in the trial court,
which is the basis of the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants submitted that the original
MOU can be filed at any time before the framing of issues by the trial court, and even
subsequently, with the leave of the court, in accordance with Order 7 Rule 14 read with Order 13
Rule 1 CPC, relying upon the case law of Uday Pratap Singh (supra).

29. The Apex Court in the case of Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma and
another (2013)14 SCC 612, has held that leave can be granted to file documents under Order 7
Rule 14 CPC when cross examination of the witness had not yet commenced.

30. It is true that the Apex Court in the above referred case of Kapil Kumar Sharma (supra)
and this Court in the case of Uday Pratap Singh (supra) has held that Order 7 Rule 14 read with
Order 13 Rule 1 of CPC are procedural in nature and consequently, it was held that it is not a
mandatory provision. In view of this, the plaintiff can file the original document at the time of
framing of the issues and if he fails to do so, the same would not be taken in evidence without the
leave of the court. In view of this, non-filing of the original MOU is not fatal to the plaintiffs case.

Whether MOU creates any rights in favour of plaintiffs
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

31. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff appellants submitted that the MOU does not
create any vested right in favour of the plaintiffs in the disputed land because the ownership
remains with the land owners, which has not been transferred. It was further submitted that in the
light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of The interplay
between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act,
1899, IN RE (2024) 6 SCC 1 (By 7 Judges) this issue was not relevant, as such the trial court has
erred in concluding that the MOU could not be considered to be legally enforceable document
because it was neither stamped nor registered.

32. The Constitution bench of the Apex Court in the case of The interplay between
Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899
(supra) was considering the situation where an arbitration agreement was in existence between the
parties and for enforcing that agreement, for either referring the matter by the Court to an arbitrator
under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or for appointing an arbitrator by the
Court under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, whether at that stage an objection can be taken by the
contesting party, before the court, that the arbitration agreement cannot be acted upon because it
was unstamped and unregistered.

33. It was held by the Apex Court that Sections 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act cannot be allowed
to operate in proceedings under Section 11(or Section 8, as the case may be), in view of the nonobstante clause in Section 5 of the Act of 1996. It was further held that it is for the Arbitral
Tribunal and not the Court which may test whether the requirements of a valid contract and a valid
arbitration agreement are met. If the Tribunal finds that these conditions are not met, it will decline
to hear the dispute any further. If it finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists, it may assess
whether the underlying agreement is a valid contract.

34. It was further held by the Apex Court that by enacting Section 16 of the Arbitration Act,
the Parliament has permitted an agreement to arbitrate to be preliminarily enforced even if it is only
an agreement. After parties have been referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act
or after the appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Act, the Arbitral Tribunal will have
jurisdiction to determine all questions and issues in dispute between the parties. It was further held
that once the Arbitral Tribunal has been appointed, it will act in accordance with law and proceed
to impound the agreement under Section 33 of the Stamp Act if it sees fit to do so. It has the
authority to receive evidence by consent of the parties, in terms of Section 35. It was further held
that the procedure under Section 35 may be followed thereafter. It was further held that the
impounding of an agreement which contains an arbitration clause at the stage of the appointment of
an arbitrator under Section 11(or Section 8 as the case may be) of the Arbitration Act will delay the
commencement of arbitration.

35. It was further held by the Apex Court that non-stamping or insufficient stamping of an
instrument does not render it invalid or non-existent. It was further held that the Referral Court at
Section 11 stage, should not examine or impound an unstamped or insufficiently stamped
instrument, but rather leave it for the determination of the Arbitral Tribunal. It was further held that
when a party produces an arbitration agreement or a certified copy, the Referral Court only has to
examine whether an arbitration agreement exists in terms of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. It was
1 All. M/s Sai Dham Apartments & Anr. Vs. Ravi Kumar Mehrotra & Ors.
151
further held that the Referral Court under Section 11 is not required to examine whether a certified
copy of the agreement/instrument/contract discloses the fact of payment of stamp duty on the
original.

36. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court finally concluded as under: -

(i) Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible
in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Such agreements are not rendered void or void
ab initio or unenforceable;

(ii) Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect;

(iii) An objection as to stamping does not fall for determination under Sections 8 or11 of
the Arbitration Act. The Court concerned must examine whether the arbitration agreement primafacie exists;

(iv) Any objections in relation to the stamping of the agreement fall within the ambit of
the Arbitral Tribunal; and