2013 (7) TMI 1211 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application u/r 7 Rule 11 of CPC by Defendant No. 3.
2. Claim for recovery of Rs. 25 lacs from Defendant No. 1.
3. Claim for cancellation of Sale Deed.
4. Claim for perpetual injunction against the defendants.

Summary:

1. Application u/r 7 Rule 11 of CPC by Defendant No. 3:
The court addressed the application filed by Defendant No. 3 u/r 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which argued that no cause of action against Defendant No. 3 was disclosed in the plaint, and no relief was claimed against Defendant No. 3. The court noted that mere making of averments without claiming any relief is insufficient. The plaintiffs failed to correct this even after the application was filed. Consequently, the court allowed the application and rejected the plaint against Defendant No. 3.

2. Claim for recovery of Rs. 25 lacs from Defendant No. 1:
The plaintiffs' claim for recovery of Rs. 25 lacs was based on the defendant receiving bayana of Rs. 4 lacs and Rs. 12 lacs for properties. However, only the bayana rasid of Rs. 4 lacs was produced, and the agreement-cum-bayana rasid for Rs. 12 lacs was not. The court found the claim for damages based on the bayana rasid of Rs. 4 lacs to be barred by time. Additionally, the claim for losses from betting in cricket was barred on the principle of in pari delicto, as betting is illegal, and the court will not enforce an illegal transaction.

3. Claim for cancellation of Sale Deed:
The plaintiffs sought cancellation of a registered Sale Deed, admitting their signatures on it. The court emphasized that entertaining such suits would undermine the sanctity of registered transactions. The consideration for the Sale Deed was linked to illegal betting, and the court refused to use its process to cancel the deed. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' simultaneous claim for compensation for losses, including those from the Sale Deed, negated their entitlement to cancellation.

4. Claim for perpetual injunction against the defendants:
The plaintiffs admitted that the properties related to the agreements-cum-bayana rasid had changed hands, and the subsequent purchasers were not impleaded. Thus, the claim for injunction was misconceived. Regarding the property under the Sale Deed, since the plaintiffs were not entitled to cancellation, they could not claim an injunction.

Conclusion:
The suit was dismissed against Defendants No. 1 & 2 as well, with no costs awarded. The decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up.