Summary
Rejection of a plaint seeking cancellation of registered sale deeds was upheld for absence of a right to that relief and limitation. Even assuming unpaid balance consideration, the completed sale could not be cancelled on that ground; recovery remedies were distinct. The plaintiffs’ own pleading and documents showed that the alleged non-payment arose in 2009. Obtaining an index in 2014 did not create a fresh cause of action or save the delayed suit. The appeal was dismissed with Rs.1 lakh costs.
Issues
- What material may be considered when rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11.
- Whether alleged non-payment of balance sale consideration justified cancellation of the completed sale.
- Whether the 2014 suit could avoid limitation through an alleged later discovery.
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rules 11 and 14, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole with its relied-upon documents, excluding the defence on merits; the pleaded claim warranted rejection under clauses (a) and (d). (¶¶ 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, 15.3, 15.8, 15.9)
- Schedule, Articles 58 and 59, Limitation Act, 1963The three-year limitation and relevant accrual or knowledge tests could not be avoided by a later index copy when the pleaded non-payment arose in 2009. (¶¶ 14, 15.4, 15.7, 15.8)
- Section 54, definition of sale, Transfer of Property Act, 1882A sale can be for a price paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised; actual payment of the whole price is not invariably essential to passing title. (¶ 15.3)
Held
- Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power requiring strict compliance. The plaint must be examined in its entirety with documents forming its basis, without relying on the defence or deciding the factual truth of a prima facie cause of action. Illusory pleading cannot create a right to sue. (¶¶ 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, 13)
- The admitted registered sale acknowledged payment and transfer of possession. Even assuming the alleged unpaid balance, the completed sale could not be invalidated on that ground; the plaintiffs could pursue available recovery remedies rather than cancellation. The plaint therefore disclosed no right to the cancellation sought. (¶¶ 15.1, 15.2, 15.3)
- On the plaintiffs’ own case, the alleged non-payment occurred in 2009. Obtaining the sale-deed index in November 2014 was not a new cause of action. Omitting the earlier sale date from the prayer and invoking the subsequent sale could not circumvent the three-year bar. (¶¶ 14, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, 15.7, 15.8)
- With the challenge to the original sale liable to rejection under clauses (a) and (d), cancellation of the derivative sale could not be entertained. The litigation was an abuse of process. (¶¶ 15.9, 16)
Result
Appeal dismissed; rejection of plaint affirmed. Appellant to pay Rs.1 lakh costs to Respondents 2 and 3 within twelve weeks; pending applications disposed of.