PATNA, India, Oct. 24 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 25:
Heard learned counsel on behalf of petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present Civil revision has been filed against the order dated 12.04.2002 passed by learned Court of Munsif II, Munger in Eviction case No. 01 of 2016 whereby and where under petition under order 7 rule 11 filed by the petitioners has been rejected.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the learned trial court committed illegality in refusing the application for rejection of plaint under order VII rule 11 of CPC, the impugned order is illegal, improper and against the mandatory provisions of law and is liable to set aside. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that plaintiff has got no valid cause of action for the suit on the basis of averments contained in the plaint as the plaintiff case is vexatious, meritless and completely based on irrelevant statements and frivolous facts thus the plaint ought to have been rejected under order-VII Rule-II (a) and order VII Rule (a) of code of civil procedure .
3.i. He further submitted that suit is barred under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908. He relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt.Ltd v State of Haryana and anr Air 2012 SC 206
Section 54 of TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam and Anr.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/OCMzNSMyMDIyIzEjTg==-Y1dDltTpre8=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
