Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of application for framing additional issues in a suit for declaration of ownership and validity of a sale deed, a single-judge bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the present petition and affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the application for framing additional issues on the ground that Issue no. 2 as formulated by trial court already covers the same.
In the instant matter, the petitioners filed a suit seeking a declaration that they are the rightful owners of disputed land and challenging the validity of a sale deed dated 13-07-2017 executed by their father. During the trial, issues were framed. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application to the trial court for framing additional issues related to whether their father had lost mental equilibrium due to paralysis and whether the sale deed was executed without consideration. The trial court rejected this application and stated that the proposed issues were already covered by existing ‘Issue No. 2’, which addressed the legality of the sale deed executed on 13-07-2017. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial court, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the same. The main issue is whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners’ application for framing additional issues concerning the mental condition of their father and the consideration for the sale deed.
The petitioners contended that the specific issues were necessary as they had pleaded that their father’s mental capacity was impaired due to paralysis, justifying the need for additional issues. However, the respondent argued that ‘Issue No. 2’ already encompassed the essential elements required for assessing the validity of the sale deed, thereby making additional issues redundant.
The Court noted that “for executing a valid sale deed, it is required that the same must be done by the seller with his free consent and without any coercion or pressure.” The Court reasoned that ‘Issue No. 2’ which states that “whether the registered sale deed dated 13.7.2017 was illegally executed”, adequately covered the aspects of the sale deed’s validity, including any allegations of illegal execution or lack of consideration. The Court found no jurisdictional error or material illegality in the trial court’s decision, concluding that no grounds existed to interfere with the lower court’s ruling. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the petitioners’ application for additional issues and dismissed the present petition.
[Govind Potfode v. Madhuri, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4883, Decided on 16-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, Counsel for the Petitioners
Buy Constitution of India HERE
