Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Cr / 99U / 2026Smt. Champa Devi vs Jogaram (2026:Rj-Jd:16658) on 9 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:16658]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 45/2026
Smt. Champa Devi W/o Shri Kailash Paviya, Aged About 55
Years, R/o 28, Vastu Nagar, Opposite India bulls Mall, Shatabdi
Circle, Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jogaram S/o Shri Girdhari Ram Ji, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o Villagekudi Bhagtasani, Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
2. Geegaram S/o Shri Hemaram, Resident Of Kalyan Singh
Ki Dhani, Indrana, Barmer Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Kumar Surana with
Mr. Tarun Dudia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma with
Mr. Piyush Joshi
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
Reportable
09/04/2026
1. The present revision petition has been filed aggrieved of
order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure-4) passed by Additional
District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No.
68/2024 whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section
151, CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the application') as filed on
behalf of petitioner/defendant No.2, stood rejected.
2. The facts are that a suit for cancellation of sale deed and
permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff Jogaram with the
averment that he is the recorded khatedar of an agricultural land.
As the user of the land was required to be converted to residential
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (2 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
and the land was required to be developed, defendant No.2
Champa Devi and one Anil Kaushik entered into an agreement
with the plaintiff in the Year 2012 to undertake the said
proceedings. For the purpose, plaintiff signed certain stamp
papers and blank papers and handed over to them. As per the
agreement, the complete expenses for conversion/development
were to be borne by Champa Devi & Anil Kaushik and in lieu of the
same, 13 bighas out of total 27 bighas of land was to be
transferred to them by the plaintiff after receiving the due
consideration.
3. It was further averred that no proceedings, whatsoever, for
conversion/development were undertaken by both till the year
2021 and hence, a dispute arose between the parties. When no
proceedings were undertaken by them till the month of January
2022, plaintiff demanded for the return of his original documents,
on which he was threatened that they have got an agreement to
sell, a development agreement and two Power of Attorneys (for
short 'P/A') in their favour and would proceed on basis of the said
documents. The plaintiff therefore, in the month of January 2022,
orally revoked the alleged P/A and development agreement dated
05.12.2012. However, despite the same, they did not hand over
the original documents back to him.
4. In that event, vide registered notice dated 02.11.2023, the
plaintiff revoked/cancelled the P/A and development agreement
dated 05.12.2012. A public notice to the said effect was also got
published in daily newspaper dated 07.11.2023.
5. On being served with the above notice, it was informed by
Champa Devi & Anil Kaushik that by virtue of P/A dated
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (3 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
05.12.2012, defendant No.2 had already executed a sale deed on
31.10.2023, in favour of defendant No.1 Geegaram, which was
totally illegal as it was the plaintiff who was in possession of the
land as a recorded khatedar, till the said date. Further, the sale
deed was executed despite the P/A having been cancelled/revoked
by the plaintiff and furthermore, no consideration amount was
ever paid to the plaintiff. Meaning thereby, the sale deed in
question was a sham document and was executed just to play a
fraud upon the plaintiff.
6. With the above averments, the following reliefs were prayed
for by the plaintiff:
"12. कि प्रार्थना वादी है कि वाद वादी बहक वादी विरुद्ध
प्रतिवादीगण डिक्री किया जावे कि-
क- कि प्रतिवादीगण सं. 2 द्वारा तथाकथित रूप से वादी के
मुख्यार की है सियत से प्रतिवादी सं. 1 के हक में दर्शाये जा
रहे आलोच्य विक्रय विलेख दिनांक 31-10-2023 को
निष्पादित कर दिनांक 3-11-2023 को पस्
ु तक सं. 1. जिल्द
सं. 27 में पष्ृ ठ सं. 23, क्रम सं. 202303544103548 पर
उपपंजीयक लूणी के यहां पंजीयन करवाया गया है उसे निरस्त
किया जावे।
ख- कि प्रतिवादीगण को जरिये स्थाई निषेधाज्ञा से पाबन्द
फरमाया जावे कि वे स्वयं अथवा किसी रिश्तेदार, एजेन्ट,
मुख्त्यार कारीगर, मजदरू ठे केदार या अन्य किसी के मार्फ त
वादी को वादग्रस्त भमि
ू से न तो बेदखल करे अथवा करवावे
अथवा न ही वादी के वादग्रस्त भूमि के उपयोग व उपभोग में
किसी प्रकार बाधा डाले न ही वादग्रस्त भूमि या उसके किसी
हिस्से का प्रतिवादीगण आगे किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को बैचान,
हस्तान्तरण या अन्य व्ययन करे अथवा करवावे।
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (4 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
ग- हर्जा खर्चा दीगर दादरसी लाभप्रद वादी वादी को
प्रतिवादीगण से दिलवाया जावे।"
7. An application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was filed on
behalf of defendant No.2 on the following grounds:
(i) The land in question was an agricultural land and the relief
for injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff was within the
domain of a Revenue Court.
(ii) The plaintiff had no right to pray for cancellation of the
sale deed as on the date of filing of the suit, he was not
the recorded khatedar as the land stood mutated in
favour of defendant No.1. Therefore, without the
declaration of his khatedari rights by a competent
Revenue Court, the plaintiff could not have laid the
present suit for cancellation of sale deed.
(iii) No cause of action accrued to the plaintiff and it was a
clear case of clever drafting. The plaintiff on the one hand
averred that P/A was revoked orally in the Year 2022,
and on the other hand, in his notice dated 02.11.2023,
specifically admitted the execution of P/A and
development agreement on 05.12.2012 and revoked the
same with immediate effect vide the said notice. The said
notice did not even whisper about the earlier alleged oral
revocation in the month of January 2022. Hence, the
present suit is a classic example of vexatious litigation
wherein an illusory cause of action has been tried to be
created by the plaintiff.
(iv) It is the settled position of law that if a document has
been executed in writing, the revocation of the same also
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (5 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
has to be in writing and cannot be orally revoked. The
revocation/cancellation of P/A dated 05.12.2012 was
evidently vide written notice dated 02.11.2023. Meaning
thereby, it remained in existence on 31.10.2023 when
the sale deed in question was executed. The same being
in total consonance with law, no cause arises to the
plaintiff and the plaint deserves to be rejected.
8. The learned Trial Court while rejecting the application,
observed that the suit in question is for cancellation of sale deed
and no issue regarding the khatedari rights has been raised.
Therefore, it is the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to
entertain the suit.
9. So far as the cause of action is concerned, the Court
observed that it was specifically pleaded by the plaintiff that he is
the khatedar tenant of the land in question and despite the P/A
been revoked on 02.11.2023, the sale deed was executed on
03.11.2023. The said pleadings did reflect a cause of action
having accrued to the plaintiff and hence, the plaint was not liable
to be rejected.
10. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial
Court erroneously recorded a finding to the effect that the sale
deed in question was executed on 03.11.2023 whereas it was the
date on which it was registered. So far as the execution is
concerned, the same was executed on 31.10.2023 itself and was
even presented before the Registrar on the said date. The same
evidently being prior to the alleged revocation of the P/A vide
notice dated 02.11.2023, was perfectly valid.
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (6 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
11. Counsel submitted that the above facts have been pleaded
by the plaintiff himself in the plaint and a bare reading of the said
pleadings makes it crystal clear that no cause of action accrued to
the plaintiff. Counsel while relying upon the Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment in Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna
Singh (Dead) by LRs.; 2020 (16) SCC 601 submitted that the
plaint deserved to be rejected at the threshold.
12. Per contra counsel for the respondent submitted that it was
specifically averred by the plaintiff that the P/A was orally revoked
in the month of January 2022 and hence, the sale deed, even if
deemed to have been executed on 31.10.2023, was subsequent to
the said date. In view of the said pleading, the learned Trial Court
rightly concluded that a cause of action did accrue to the plaintiff
and hence, rightly rejected the application as filed on behalf of
defendant No.2.
13. Counsel further submitted that no sale consideration was
received by the plaintiff and therefore too, a sale without
consideration was even otherwise void.
14. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
15. So far as the rejection of the application by the learned Trial
Court on the count that the plaint did not raise any issue
pertaining to khatedari rights is concerned, the same is in
consonance with the material available on record. Evidently, the
suit in question was for cancellation of sale deed on ground of
fraud and no relief for declaration of any khatedari rights qua an
agricultural land was prayed for by the plaintiff. He rather pleaded
himself to be the recorded khatedar of the land in question. Order
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (7 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
impugned hence, does not deserve any interference to that
extent.
16. But then a bare reading of the plaint reflects that no cause of
action can be concluded to have accrued to the plaintiff. The
position of law on Order 7 Rule 11, CPC is well settled. As held by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali; (2020) 7 SCC 366, a duty is cast on the Court to
determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by
scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with
the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any
law. Therein, the Court observed that having regard to Order 7
Rule 14, CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint are
required to be taken into consideration for deciding application
under Order 7 Rule 11(a), CPC. When a document referred to in
the plaint forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a
part of the plaint. The Court therein, proceeded on to observe and
hold as under:
"23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the court
would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are
contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding
whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is
made out.
23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in
the written statement and application for rejection of the
plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be
adverted to, or taken into consideration.
23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order
7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint
are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the
documents relied upon, would the same result in a
decree being passed. This test was laid down in
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (8 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
I, (2004) 9 SCC 512 which reads as : (SCC p. 562, para
139)
"139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or
not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it
does or does not must be found out from reading
the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments
made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to
be correct. The test is as to whether if the
averments made in the plaint are taken to be
correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed."
23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co., (2007) 5
SCC 614 the Court further held that it is not permissible to
cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in
isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form,
which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be
construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of
words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a
cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry
whether the allegations are true in fact. D. Ramachandran
v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267.
23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is
found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and
without any merit, and does not disclose a right to
sue, the court would be justified in exercising the
power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC."
17. Testing on the touchstone of the above settled position of
law, this Court would proceed on to scrutinize the averments as
made in the plaint and the averments as made in the documents
as relied upon and annexed with the plaint. In Para-4 of the plaint,
it has been averred as under:
"4. यह है कि चम्पादे वी व अनिल कोशिक की नियत में शुरू से ही
खोट थी एवं वे वादी का येन केन प्रकारे ण से नुकसान कारित करने
पर उतारू थे एवं अपनी हरकतों से बाज नहीं आ रहे थे। जिस
कारण वादी द्वारा चम्पादे वी व अनिल कोशिक द्वारा तथाकथित
रूप से दर्शाये जा रहे आम मुख्त्यारनामा, विकास एवं समर्वधन
अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 5-12-2012 को अपने अधिवक्ता के जरिये
रजिस्टर्ड ए/डी नोटिस के द्वारा दिनांक 2-11-2023 को निरस्त
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (9 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
करते हुए स्वयं द्वारा निष्पादित उपरोक्त दोनों ही दस्तावेजात को
ही पुनः लिखित रूप से निरस्त कर दिया। जिसकी सूचना भी वादी
द्वारा दै निक समाचार पत्र में दिनांक 7-11-2023 को प्रकाशित
करवा दी।"
18. In notice dated 02.11.2023, it was averred as under:
"2. यह है कि मेरे मव
ु क्किल ने अपनी उक्त कृषि भूमि में से
रकबा 6 बीघा बाबत ् एक आम मुख्त्यारनामा दिनांक
05/12/2012 को तथा एक विकास एवं संर्वद्धन अनुबन्ध पत्र
दिनांक 05/12/2012 को निष्पादित कर आपको प्रदान किया
था।
3. यह है कि वर्तमान में मेरे मुवक्किल को अपनी उक्त कृषि भमि
ू
बाबत ् किसी प्रकार की कोई कार्यवाही नहीं करनी है तथा मेरा
मुवक्किल द्वारा आपके पक्ष में निष्पादित किये गये आम
मुख्त्यारनामा दिनांक 05/12/2012 तथा विकास एवं संर्वद्धन
अनुबन्ध पत्र दिनांक 05/12/2012 को तुरन्त प्रभाव से निरस्त व
रद्द करता है तथा आपसे आग्रह करता है कि आप मेरे मुवक्किल
के उपरोक्त आम मुख्त्यारनामा व विकास एवं संर्वद्वन अनुबन्ध
पत्र को किसी भी रूप में उपयोग नहीं करे तथा इन दस्तावेजात की
मूल प्रति यह नोटिस प्राप्त होते ही वापस सुपुर्द कर दे वे।"
19. A joint reading of the above averments makes it crystal clear
that the execution of P/A by the plaintiff in favour of defendant
No.2 Champa Devi has not been disputed or denied. Rather, it is
an admitted case of the plaintiff that both P/A and development
agreement were executed by him on 05.12.2012.
20. The case of the plaintiff is that the said P/A was
revoked/cancelled orally in Year 2022 and subsequently, in writing,
vide notice dated 02.11.2023. Therefore, P/A holder did not have
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (10 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
any right to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on
03.11.2023.
21. So far as the alleged oral revocation of the P/A in the month
of January 2022 is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion
that the same, even if accepted, would be of no consequence. It is
the settled position of law that a contract or disposition which is
required to be in writing and has been reduced to writing, its
terms cannot be modified or altered or substituted by oral contract
or disposition. As held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in S. Saktivel
(Dead) by LRs Vs. M. Venugopal Pillai & Ors.; (2000) 7 SCC
104, no parol evidence will be admissible to substantiate such an
oral contract or disposition. A document which, for its validity or
effectiveness is required by law to be in writing, no modification or
alteration or substitution of such written document is permissible
by parol evidence and it is only by another written document that
the terms of earlier written document can be altered, rescinded or
substituted. Therein, the Court while considering the provision of
Section 92 of The Evidence Act, 1872 observed as under:
"A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that
what Section 92 provides is that when the terms
of any contract, grant or other disposition of
property, or any matter required by law to be
reduced in the form of a document, have been
proved, no evidence of any oral agreement or
statement is permissible for the purpose of
contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting
from the said written document. However this
provision is subject to provisos (1) to (6) but we
are not concerned with other provisos except
proviso (4), which is relevant in the present case.
The question then is whether the defendant-
appellant can derive any benefit out of proviso (4)
to Section 92 for setting up oral arrangement
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (11 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
arrived at in the year 1941 which has the effect of
modifying the written and registered disposition.
Proviso (4) to Section 92 contemplates three
situations, whereby:
(i) The existence of any distinct subsequent
oral agreement to rescind or modify any
earlier contract, grant or disposition of
property can be proved.
(ii) However, this is not permissible
where the contract, grant or disposition
of property is by law required to be in
writing.
(iii) No parol evidence can be let in to
substantiate any subsequent oral
arrangement which has the effect of
rescinding a contract or disposition of
property which is registered according to the
law in force for the time being as to the
registration of documents."
22. It is also the settled position of law that if any right is
transferred vide a written document, the revocation of such
document also has to be in writing and such
revocation/cancellation ought to be brought to the notice of the
party in whose favour the right was sought to be transferred.
[Amar Nath Vs. Gian Chand; 2022 (11) SCC 460].
23. In view of above settled position of law, the alleged oral
revocation of P/A by the plaintiff can be of no consequence.
24. Once it been held that the plaintiff did execute a P/A in
favour of defendant No.2, the natural and legal consequence is
that defendant No.2 was entitled to execute a sale deed by virtue
of the said P/A. The issue now is - Whether the sale deed in
question was executed by the P/A holder prior to the revocation of
P/A or not?
25. As it has already been held that the alleged oral revocation is
of no consequence, this Court would now revert to the pleadings
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (12 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
qua written revocation of P/A. As per the averments made in the
plaint, the P/A was revoked vide written notice dated 02.11.2023.
So far as the execution of the sale deed on 31.10.2023 is
concerned, the same is not disputed. In para 7 of the plaint it has
specifically been averred as under:-
"लेकिन प्रतिवादीगण ने आपस में षडयन्त्रपूर्वक प्रतिवादी
सं० 2 द्वारा वादी का स्वयं को आम मुख्त्यार दर्शाते हुए
दिनांक 31-10-2023 को आलोच्य विक्रय विलेख
निष्पादित कर दिनांक 3-11-2023 को पस्
ु तक सं० 1,
जिल्द सं0 27 में पष्ृ ठ सं० 23, क्रम सं0
202303544103548 पर पंजीबद्ध करवाया गया है ।"
26. In view of the above, when it is an admitted fact that the
sale deed was executed on 31.10.2023, the observation made by
the learned Trial Court that the sale deed was executed on
03.11.2023, is on the face of it, erroneous. It is only the
registration of the said deed which was made on 03.11.2023. In
that event, the sale deed executed on 31.10.2023 was perfectly
valid as the P/A had not been revoked and remained in existence
till the said date.
27. From the over all facts and analysis as made in the preceding
paras, this Court is of the clear opinion that the plaint in question
is the best example of frivolous and vexatious litigation. It is a
clear case of clever drafting whereby an illusory cause of action
has been sought to be created by the plaintiff. As is the settled
position of law, whenever and wherever, the Court finds that the
litigation is a frivolous and vexatious one and the pleadings as
made comprise of the illusory facts so as to create an illusory
cause of action, the same deserves to be nipped in the bud.
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16658] (13 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
28. In Rajendra Bajoria Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan; 2022
(12) SCC 641 Hon'ble the Apex Court while dealing with the
issue, observed and held as under:
"15. It could thus be seen that this Court has
held that reading of the averments made in the
plaint should not only be formal but also
meaningful. It has been held that if clever
drafting has created the illusion of a cause
of action, and a meaningful reading thereof
would show that the pleadings are
manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue,
then the court should exercise its power
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC . It has
been held that such a suit has to be nipped
in the bud at the first hearing itself.
.........
.........
17. It could thus be seen that the court has to find out as to whether in the background of the facts, the relief, as claimed in the plaint, can be granted to the plaintiff. It has been held that if the court finds that none of the reliefs sought in the plaint can be granted to the plaintiff under the law, the question then arises is as to whether such a suit is to be allowed to continue and go for trial. This Court answered the said question by holding that such a suit should be thrown out at the threshold. This Court, therefore, upheld the order passed by the trial court of rejecting the suit and that of the appellate court, thereby affirming the decision of the trial court. This Court set aside the order passed by the High Court, wherein the High Court had set aside the concurrent orders of the trial court and the appellate court and had restored and remanded the suit for trial to the trial court."
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM) (Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:16658] (14 of 15) [CR-45/2026]
29. Same view has been reiterated by this Court in Rajasthan State Sriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ajeet Singh; (2023) 3 RLW 2123 whereby the Court held as under:
"19. In the matter of Pukhraj Soni v. Nisha Citlangiya; S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 103/2018 (decided on 24.10.2018) a Coordinate Bench of this Court while relying upon the earlier decision in Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji Chhota Bhandar v. Kanhaiyalal, (2008) 4 CivCC 133, held as under:
"The frivolous litigations are required to be nibbed in the bud at the earliest possible stage to safeguard the rights of adversary in facing the litigation and prolonging his agony. In such cases, even in absence of available grounds under various clauses of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC Court can very well invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC."
30. In view of the above settled position of law, this Court is of the clear opinion that the plaint in question deserves to be rejected and the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC as preferred by defendant No.2 deserves to be allowed.
31. So far as the ground raised by the plaintiff regarding the non receipt of the consideration amount is concerned, the same definitely cannot be a ground for cancellation of a sale deed. Any such averment can although entitle the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of the consideration amount, but non receipt of the consideration amount cannot entitle a person to claim for cancellation of the sale deed. The said view has been reiterated by this Court in Smt. Sarla Pareek Vs. Sawal Ram & Anr.; S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 105/2026 (decided on 16.03.2026) while relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Dahiben Vs. (Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM) (Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:49 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:16658] (15 of 15) [CR-45/2026] Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (Dead) through LRs & Ors.; 2020 (7) SCC 366. The Court held as under:
"10. The answer to the above issue can be found in Dahiben (supra), wherein the Court held that even if the averments of the plaintiffs are taken to be true that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the sale deed. The Court observed that therein, the plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed. The Court further held that in such matters, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a), CPC."
32. As a consequence of the above analysis, observations and findings, the present revision petition stands allowed. Order impugned dated 29.09.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The plaint as preferred by the plaintiff is hence, rejected.
33. Needless to observe that if an appropriate application is preferred by the plaintiff before the Trial Court for refund of the court fee as paid by him on the plaint, learned Trial Court shall be under an obligation to pass appropriate orders for refund of the same, in accordance with law.
34. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 18-Mak/rahul/-
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 03:54:10 PM) (Downloaded on 08/05/2026 at 09:26:50 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)