Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt Vijay Anand vs Neeraj Handa on 17 November, 2025

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29404




                                                               1                                 CR-964-2024
                              IN        THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                          BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
                                                ON THE 17th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                                  CIVIL REVISION No. 964 of 2024
                                                SMT VIJAY ANAND AND OTHERS
                                                           Versus
                                                 NEERAJ HANDA AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Kamal Mangal - Advocate for applicants.
                                   Shri Chandra Pratap Singh Kushwah - Advocate for respondent No.1

                                                                   ORDER

1. This Civil Revision under section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 07/08/2024 passed by 14th Civil Judge, Senior Division Gwalior in RCSA No.1055/2023 by which an application filed by the defendants/applicants under order 7 rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is his case that although the property in dispute was purchased in the name of defendant No.1- Smt. Vijay Anand but half of the consideration amount was paid by the plaintiff/respondent, and thus, it was prayed that the defendant No.1 had no authority to execute the sale deed dated 09/02/2021 in favor of defendant No.2 and it was also claimed that since the plaintiff is in possession of the half share of the property in dispute, therefore, a permanent injunction be issued against the defendants.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29404 2 CR-964-2024

3. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that since the sale deed in favor of defendant No.1 was executed on 18/4/2012 i.e. much after coming into force of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988, therefore, the ground raised by the plaintiff that half of the consideration amount was paid by him is hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, and thus, it is prayed that the relief clause No. A, B and C are barred by the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. So far as the relief No.D is concerned, it is fairly conceded that if the plaintiff is found to be in possession then he is required to be dispossessed by following due procedure of law and his articles cannot be thrown away. It is submitted that the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the questions raised by the applicants are mixed questions of facts and law, but in view of the fact that the sale deed dated 18/4/2012, which was executed in favor of the defendant No.1, was subsequent to coming into force of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, therefore, no mixed question of fact & law is involved.

4. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.1.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Kum. Geetha vs. Nanjundaswamy and Ors., decided on 31.10.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 7413/2023 and Sri Boyenepally Srijayavardhan Vs. V. Nirupama Reddy & Others decided on 29/7/2025 in SLP (C) No.5732/2025 has held that plaint Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 18-11-2025 07:05:32 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29404 3 CR-964-2024 cannot be rejected partially. Either the suit must go on as a whole or the plaint can be rejected as a whole, but under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC plaint cannot be rejected in part.

7. Thus, it is clear that plaint cannot be rejected in part. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the property in dispute. Even assuming the sale deed dated 18/4/2012 executed in favor of the defendant No.1 is hit by provisions of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act but still the plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession till he is evicted or dispossessed in accordance with law. Therefore, even assuming but not deciding, that the relief Nos.A, B, C may be hit by the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act but the relief No.D is still maintainable.

8. Since the plaint cannot be rejected in part and either it should be rejected in whole or it should continue as whole, this Court is of considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application filed under order 7 rule 11 CPC.

9. It is further submitted by counsel for applicants that although the applicants had taken an objection that Advalorem Court fee is payable but the Trial Court had not taken note of the said objection.

10. Since the objection raised by applicants has not been decided, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate the said question.

11. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to decide as to whether Advalorem Court fees is payable or not ?

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29404 4 CR-964-2024

12. So far as, other grounds raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the same have already been adjudicated by this Court, therefore, no party would be allowed to reopen the same.

13. Accordingly, the civil revision is disposed of.

(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Aman Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 18-11-2025 07:05:32 PM