RAVINDRAversusCHARU APRAIL PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANTOTHER

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 973 of 2026

Ravindra
                                                               .....Appellant(s)
                                       Versus
Charu Aprail Private Limited And Antother
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)           :    Gulab Chandra Tiwari, Santosh Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)          :

Court No. - 39
                      HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the impugned order
dated 17.02.2026 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Hapur in
Original Civil Suit No. 118 of 2025 is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that he has filed
Suit No. 187 of 2025 against the defendant/respondent no. 1 and respondent
no. 2. He seeks relief for specific performance of the contract that the sale
deed be executed in pursuance of the registered agreement to sell dated
03.10.2022, after receipt of the balance consideration of Rs. 64,22,000/-
(Rupees Sixty-Four Lakhs Twenty-Two Thousand only). In the alternative,
it is prayed that the defendant/respondents be directed to refund the part sale
consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only), along with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum and other expenses. He has also sought
a further relief that the defendants be restrained from transferring the land in
dispute or creating any third-party rights in favour of any other person.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the
execution of the agreement to sell and the sale deed executed by defendant
no. 1/respondent no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2/respondent no. 2, as well
as in favour of his wife, is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,
being governed by the principle of lis pendens. He has further submitted that
the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is neither legal nor
justifiable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, it is
liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
                                                           FAFO No. 973 of 2026
                                2


5. As per the facts of the present case, defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1
executed a registered agreement to sell his land, i.e., Khata No. 129,
comprising Khasra No. 373 (area 0.1260 hectare), Khasra No. 380-Ka (area
0.1490 hectare), Khasra No. 382 (area 0.0250 hectare), Khasra No. 383 (area
0.2400 hectare), Khasra No. 411-Kha (area 0.0510 hectare), Khasra No. 412-
Kha (area 0.0460 hectare), and Khasra No. 417 (area 0.0820 hectare),
totaling seven khasra numbers with an aggregate area of 0.7190 hectare. He
also agreed to sell land of Khata No. 127, Khasra No. 368, having a total
area of 0.3730 hectare, out of which, area 0.1865 hectare was agreed to be
sold. Thus, the total area agreed to be sold under the aforesaid khasra
numbers comes to 0.9055 hectare in favour of the appellant/plaintiff for a
total consideration of Rs. 84,22,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Four Lakhs Twenty-
Two Thousand only).

6. Thereafter, defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1 received a sum of Rs.
20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) from the plaintiff/appellant by way
of two cheques of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) each, vide
cheque nos. 558915 and 558916 drawn on Zila Sahkari Bank Limited,
Branch Dhaulana. It was agreed at the time of execution of the said
agreement to sell that the remaining amount would be paid to defendant no.
1 at the time of execution of the sale deed.

7. The period for performance of the said agreement to sell was up to
02.03.2023. During this period, defendant no. 1 also executed a registered
agreement to sell dated 03.10.2022, registered in Book No. 1, Volume 5493,
pages 309–320, Document No. 12100, before the Sub-Registrar, Dhaulana.

 8. In respect of the cheques received from the plaintiff, defendant no. 1
directed the plaintiff to transfer the amount mentioned in the cheques into his
account by way of RTGS, and assured that he would not present the said
cheques for encashment before the bank.

9. Accordingly, the appellant/plaintiff transferred a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) into the account of defendant no. 1 vide UTR
No. ZSBLH22288000003 dated 15.10.2022.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has further submitted that, at
the time of execution of the said agreement to sell, there was an endorsement
regarding attachment mentioned in respect of the said land. Defendant no. 1
informed the plaintiff that the said endorsement had been made erroneously.
                                                            FAFO No. 973 of 2026
                                 3


11. Accordingly, in Clause 5 of the agreement to sell dated 03.10.2022, it
was clearly stipulated that “no prior agreement or sale deed in respect of the
said property had been executed before the aforesaid agreement, and that
the sale deed would be executed only after the cancellation of the order
recorded in the Khatauni of the said land.”

12. Defendant no. 1 was fully aware of this condition. The plaintiff
repeatedly requested defendant no. 1 to have the wrongly recorded order
cancelled and to execute the sale deed in his favour upon payment of the
balance consideration. However, defendant no. 1 neither provided any clear
response nor took steps to have the said order cancelled, and continued to
delay the matter on one pretext or another, as a result of which a period of
about two years elapsed. Defendant no. 1 further instructed the plaintiff that
the date mentioned for execution of the sale deed in the agreement would
remain unchanged, i.e., 02.03.2023, but he would neither be able to get the
wrongly recorded order cancelled nor execute the sale deed on that date. He,
therefore, advised the plaintiff not to appear before the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Dhaulana on the scheduled date of 02.03.2023, and assured that he
would inform the plaintiff by registered post regarding the execution of the
sale deed. For this reason, the plaintiff did not appear before the Sub-
Registrar’s office, Dhaulana on 02.03.2023.

13. Thereafter, on 15.04.2025, the plaintiff sent a notice to defendant no. 1
by registered post stating that he was no longer willing to wait and fixed
30.04.2025 for execution of the sale deed. It was stated that on the said date,
the plaintiff would carry the balance consideration along with other expenses
and present himself before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dhaulana, where
he would wait from morning till evening for execution of the sale deed.

14. In the meantime, the plaintiff came to know that, despite the subsisting
agreement in his favour, the defendants, in collusion with each other,
executed separate agreements for sale of portions of the land in dispute,
namely, Khasra Nos. 373, 380, 382, and 383 (four plots), and further Khasra
Nos. 417, 411-Kha, 412-Kha, 411-Ka, and 412-Ka, in favour of defendant
no. 2.

 15. After receiving the said information, the plaintiff applied for a certified
copy of the agreement to sell and came to know about the execution of
agreements to sell in favour of defendant no. 2 and his wife. The plaintiff has
                                                               FAFO No. 973 of 2026
                                  4


submitted that, at the time of execution of the said agreements in favour of
defendant no. 2 and his wife, the agreement to sell in his favour was still
subsisting. Hence, defendant no. 1 had no legal authority to execute any
agreement to sell or sale deed in respect of the said land in favour of any
third party, as the same is hit by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52
of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 executed two
sale deeds in favour of defendant no. 2 and his wife and also delivered
possession of the property.

 16. It is an undisputed fact that the agreement to sell in favour of the
plaintiff/appellant was valid only up to 02.03.2023. Prior to the said date,
there was no documentary correspondence between the parties, nor was any
initiative taken by the plaintiff/appellant to demonstrate that he was ready
and willing to have the sale deed executed in his favour and to pay the
balance sale consideration.

17. The learned Tribunal has specifically held, on the basis of the evidence
produced by defendant no. 1, that no amount was paid pursuant to the
agreement to sell, despite such payment being mentioned therein, and that
the two cheques in question were dishonoured. It has further been held that
the transfer of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) by the plaintiff
in favour of defendant no. 1 pertained to another transaction which took
place on the same date, namely, a sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in
favour of the plaintiff. The period for execution of the sale deed was up to
02.03.2023.

18. Section 53A- Transfer of Property Act 1882, is quoted hereibelow:

     "[53A. Part performance.-- Where any person contracts to transfer for
     consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on
     his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can
     be ascertained with reasonable certainty,
     and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken
     possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being
     already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the
     contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract,
     and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the
     contract, then, notwithstanding that where there is an instrument of
     transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner
     prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor
     or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing
                                                                                                      FAFO No. 973 of 2026
                                                                       5

                                         against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in
                                         respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in
                                         possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the
                                         contract:
                                         Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee
                                         for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part
                                         performance thereof.]"

                                    19. The prima facie period of limitation of the said agreement to sell expired
                                    on 02.03.2023. During this period, no documentary evidence was filed by
                                    the plaintiff/appellant to demonstrate his readiness and willingness to pay the
                                    balance sale consideration or to press for execution of the sale deed by
                                    defendant no. 1/seller.

                                    20. In view thereof, no prima facie case is made out for granting any interim
                                    injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

                                    21. The impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned trial court is
                                    neither illegal nor perverse and is liable to be upheld. It is upheld
                                    accordingly.

                                    22. The present appeal is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly,
                                    dismissed.

                                    April 21, 2026
                                    K.K. Maurya
                                                                                                      (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad