Allahabad High Court
Smt. Gunjan Agrawal vs Ashish Kumar Gautam And Another on 25 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Judgment Reserved on- 10.11.2025
Judgment Delivered on- 25.11.2025
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:210836
Court No. - 38
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 916 of 2025
Appellant :- Smt. Gunjan Agrawal
Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Gautam & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Mayank, Rahul Sahai
Counsel for Respondent :- Himanshu Mishra, Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal
Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.
1. The instant first appeal under section 96 of the CPC has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against impugned judgment and decree dated 28.8.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division) Court No.3 Mathura in O.S. No. 837 of 2023 Smt.Gunjan Agrawal vs.Ashish Kumar Gautam and another whereby, the application of defendant no.2 Manoj Agrawal under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and consequently, the plaint has been rejected.
2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff-appellant filed an O.S. No. 837 of 2023 initially against the defendant no.1 Ashish Kumar Gautam with the averments that she was the owner of the disputed property, a land having area of 240 m, which was purchased through sale deed dated 18.8.2009 from Jonal @ Sonal Kulshreshtha and Rupal Kulshreshtha. She averred that through sale deed dated 30.11.2022, which was registered in the office of the concerned subregistrar on the same day, the disputed property was sold to defendant no.1 for sale consideration of ₹ 32.50 lakhs, out of which, consideration of ₹ 32.30 lakhs was paid through post dated cheque No. 936693 dated 10.5.2023 for ₹ 16.60 lakhs, cheque No. 936694 dated 10.4.2023 for ₹ 10 lakh and cheque No. 936695 dated 10.3.2023 for ₹ 5.70 lakhs, which were drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Mahavan, Mathura. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the above consideration of ₹ 32.30 lakhs was to be paid subsequently as such, the above post dated cheques were issued by the defendant no.1 which were accepted by her, towards sale consideration of the disputed property.
3. The plaintiff further averred that since the consideration was agreed to be paid subsequently, after the registration of the sale deed, as such, the possession of the disputed property was not transferred to the defendant no.1(vendee/transferee). She further averred that since the defendant failed to arrange the consideration as such, he requested for more time to make the payment and it was further requested by him, that the above cheques be not presented for payment. After sometime, she requested the defendant to make payment then the defendant issued her fresh cheques and assured that he will make the required payment. The plaintiff further averred that acting on the assurance of the defendant, the fresh cheques issued by the defendant bearing No. 936701,936702 and 936703 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Mahavan, Mathura dated 25.8.2023 were deposited by her in the HDFC bank, Branch Shastripuram, Agra which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the bank account of the defendant no.1.
4. The plaintiff further averred that she informed the defendant no.1 regarding dishonour of the cheques issued by him and requested him to make payment of the remaining consideration of the sale deed but he paid no heed, as such, she was compelled to file the instant suit. She further averred that the disputed property was in her possession.
5. The plaintiff claimed the following reliefs from the defendant:-
(A)By a decree of permanent injunction granted in her favour against the defendant, the defendant and his agents be restrained from interfering in her peaceful possession of the disputed property and also from transferring it.
(B)By decree of the court, the sale deed dated 30.11.2022 which was registered in book no. 1, Jild no.17822, at pages 1-16, serial no. 24250 on 30.11.2022 in the office of subregistrar, Sadar first be cancelled and its information be also sent to the concerned subregistrar.
6. During the pendency of the suit defendant no.2 Manoj Agrawal, the husband of the plaintiff, who had allegedly purchased the disputed property on 1.8.2023 through registered sale deed from defendant no.1, moved an application to get himself impleaded in the suit on the ground that since he is the owner in possession of the disputed property, as such, he is a necessary party to the suit. This application was allowed by the trial court by order dated 31.7.2025 and consequently, Manoj Agrawal was impleaded as defendant no.2 in the suit.
7. During the pendency of the suit the defendant no.2 Manoj Agrawal moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaintiff had sold the disputed property through sale deed dated 30.11.2022 to the defendant no.1 but as per plaint allegations, she has not received the sale consideration and due to this, a prayer was made to cancel the above sale deed. It was submitted that the defendant no.1 has paid the full consideration as such, the suit was falsely instituted. It was further submitted that he had purchased the disputed property through sale deed dated 01.8.2023 and since then, he is the owner in possession of the disputed property. It was further submitted that since according to the plaintiff she has not received the sale consideration, as such, she cannot legally file the suit for getting the sale deed cancelled and she can only file suit for recovery of the balance sale consideration. It was submitted that the plaintiff 's suit was not legally maintainable as such, it be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
8. The defendant's application was opposed by the plaintiff by submitting that since the sale consideration was not paid by the defendant as such, she has filed the instant suit. She further submitted that the application was moved by the defendant for delaying the disposal of the suit which was liable to be rejected.
9. The trial court has allowed the application of defendant no.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by impugned order dated 28.8.2025 on the ground that non-payment of part of the sale price would not affect the validity of sale. The trial court opined that once the title of the property has passed to the vendee, then, even if the balance sale consideration was not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. It was opined that the plaintiff may avail the remedy for the recovery of balance sale consideration in accordance with law, but it would not entitle her, to seek the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed. It was further opined that the plaintiff could not be granted the relief of injunction ,since it was barred by Specific Relief Act.Aggrieved with this finding,the plaintiff-appellant has filed the instant appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that the plaintiff had claimed two reliefs- permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed dated 30.11.2022 as such, even if, the relief of cancellation of sale deed could not have been granted by the court, even then, the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of permanent injunction since she was in possession of the disputed property.It was submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to protect her legal possession. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had raised a triable issue as such, the plaint could not have been rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the case law of Geetha vs. Nanjundaswamy and others MANU/SC/1199/2023 and Crescent Petroleum Ltd. vs. m.v. ''MONCHEGORSK'' and others MANU/MH/0112/2000
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant respondents submitted that it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that she has not received the consideration of the sale deed, but on this ground, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.1 cannot be cancelled, since the sale has already been completed. Learned counsel submitted that since the title of the disputed property has already vested in defendant no.1, who has subsequently sold the property to defendant no.2, who is the husband of plaintiff, who is the current owner in possession of the disputed property, as such, even the relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted to the plaintiff. It was further submitted that the plaintiff is not remediless and she can institute the suit for the recovery of the alleged balance sale consideration, in accordance with law. It was submitted that the trial court has not committed any illegality in allowing the defendants application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as such, the appeal is meritless and be dismissed at the admission stage. In support of the above contention learned counsel has relied on the case law of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali(Gajra)Dead through LRs and others (2020) 7 SCC 366, Ramisetty Venkatanna and others vs. Nasyan Jamal Saheb and others MANU/SC/0483/2023 and Vivek Kalaskar vs. Arun Kumar Patel and others MANU/CG/1653/2023.
12. I have heard the learned counsel of both the sides, perused the impugned order, documents submitted with the appeal and the case law submitted by the learned counsel.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Dahiben (supra), while analysing when and how power is to be exercised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, held as under:-
23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512] , read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
23.7. Order 7 Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under:
14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
(emphasis supplied) 23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
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. [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] 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 I [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success 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. [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 [D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3 SCC 267; See also Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941] .
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.
23.14. The power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557] . The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain case [Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315. Followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 : (1998) 2 GLH 823] .
23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint shall be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the court has no option, but to reject the plaint.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Dahiben (supra), while analysing whether sale deed can be cancelled for non-payment of the remaining part of sale consideration, held as under:-
29.6. The plaintiffs have made out a case of alleged non-payment of a part of the sale consideration in the Plaint, and prayed for the relief of cancellation of the sale deed on this ground.
29.7. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides as under:
54. Sale defined.Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
The definition of sale indicates that there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another i.e. transfer of all rights and interest in the property, which was possessed by the transferor to the transferee. The transferor cannot retain any part of the interest or right in the property, or else it would not be a sale. The definition further indicates that the transfer of ownership has to be made for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale.
29.8. In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao [Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573] this Court held that the words price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised indicates that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the sale deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid, but the document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non-payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. In order to constitute a sale, the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record.
29.9. In view of the law laid down by this Court, 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 plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed. We find that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a).
15. The Apex Court in the case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) through Lrs. vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through Lrs. and others (2022)12 SCC 128, while analysing whether the relief of permanent injunction can be granted to the plaintiff when his suit for the cancellation of sale deed against the defendant, who is the true owner, has been dismissed, held as under:-
17. Therefore, once the suit is held to be barred by limitation qua the declaratory relief and when the relief for permanent injunction was a consequential relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which was a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation. It is true that under normal circumstances, the relief of permanent injunction sought is a substantive relief and the period of limitation would commence from the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed so long as the interference in possession continuous. However, in the case of a consequential relief, when the substantive relief of declaration is held to be barred by limitation, the said principle shall not be applicable.
18. Even otherwise on merits also, the courts below have erred in passing the decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant 1 from disturbing the alleged possession of the plaintiff. Assuming for the sake of argument that the plaintiff is found to be in possession, in that case also, once the plaintiff has lost so far as the relief of declaration and title is concerned and Defendant 1 is held to be the true and absolute owner of the property in question, pursuant to the execution of the sale deed dated 17-6-1975 in his favour, the true owner cannot be restrained by way of an injunction against him. In a given case, the plaintiff may succeed in getting the injunction even by filing a simple suit for permanent injunction in a case where there is a cloud on the title. However, once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, in that case, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner. In such a situation, it will not be open for the plaintiff to contend that though he/she has lost the case so far as the title dispute is concerned, the defendant the true owner still be restrained from disturbing his/her possession and his/her possession be protected.
19. In the present case, as observed hereinabove and it is not in dispute that the suit filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the registered sale deed and declaration has been dismissed and the registered sale deed in favour of Defendant 1 has been believed and thereby Defendant 1 is held to be the true and absolute owner of the suit land in question. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court insofar as refusing to grant the relief for cancellation of the registered sale deed and declaration has attained finality. Despite the fact that the plaintiff has lost so far as the title is concerned, still the courts below have granted relief of permanent injunction against Defendant 1 the absolute owner of the land in question, which is unsustainable, both on law as well as on facts. An injunction cannot be issued against a true owner or title holder and in favour of a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession.
20. ****
21. In the present case, once Defendant 1 was held to be the true and absolute owner pursuant to the registered sale deed executed in his favour and the plaintiff was unsuccessful so far as the declaratory relief is concerned, thereafter, it cannot be said that there was a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and/or even the defendant. Therefore, the only relief which survived before the trial court was the consideration of relief of permanent injunction and having been unsuccessful in getting the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed and the declaration thereof, the relief of permanent injunction could not have been granted by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court. This aspect of the case has been lost sight of by the High Court in the second appeal.
22. In A. Subramanian v. R. Pannerselvam [A. Subramanian v. R. Pannerselvam, (2021) 3 SCC 675 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 291] , it is observed by this Court that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction and/or protect his possession against the rightful owner, more particularly, when he fails to get the declaratory relief and the dispute with respect to the title comes to an end.
23. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar [Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594] by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff in support of his submission that in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant to interfere with the plaintiff's possession, the only thing the plaintiff will have to establish is that as on the date of the suit, he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the defendant has tried to interfere or disturb his possession is concerned, what is observed by this Court in para 15 is the lawful possession of the plaintiff. In the present case the plaintiff, who has failed to get any declaratory relief and Defendant 1 is held to be a true and absolute owner on the basis of the registered sale deed on payment of full sale consideration thereafter the plaintiff's possession cannot be said to be lawful possession. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner in the instant case.
24. From the impugned judgment and order [Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 4849] passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has not properly appreciated the distinction between a substantive relief and a consequential relief. The High Court has observed that in the instant case the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be a substantive relief, which is clearly an erroneous view. It is to be noted that the main reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the suit were cancellation of the sale deed and declaration and the prayer of permanent injunction restraining Defendant 1 from disturbing her possession can be said to be a consequential relief. Therefore, the title to the property was the basis of the relief of possession. If that be so, in the present case, the relief for permanent injunction can be said to be a consequential relief and not a substantive relief as observed and held by the High Court. Therefore, once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed and failed to get any declaratory relief, and as observed hereinabove, relief of injunction can be said to be a consequential relief. Therefore, the prayer for permanent injunction must fail. In the instant case as the plaintiff cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the suit land i.e. the possession of the plaintiff is not legal or authorised by the law, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any permanent injunction.
25. An injunction is a consequential relief and in a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a further relief. Whether the further relief claimed has, in a particular case as consequential upon a declaration is adequate must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Where once a suit is held not maintainable, no relief of injunction can be granted. Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law.
*** *** ***
30. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, all the courts below have erred in granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendant 1, who is the true owner. After having held that the plaintiff had no title and after dismissing the suit qua the cancellation of the registered sale deed and the declaration, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of permanent injunction against Defendant 1 the true owner.
16. From the above law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dahiben (supra) and Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (supra) it is evident that after the execution of sale deed by the transferor, the title passes to the transferee, who becomes the owner of the property and even if, some sale consideration is remaining to be paid to the transferor by the transferee, even then, the sale cannot be invalidated. The transferor cannot file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that the transferee has not paid the full sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed and the only remedy available to the transferor is to file a suit for recovery of balance sale consideration. It is also evident that when the main relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed has been refused to be granted by the trial court, then the consequential relief of permanent injunction for protecting the plaintiffs possession in the disputed property, cannot be granted against the true owner, who has acquired ownership of the disputed property on the basis of the above sale deed.
17. It is evident that according to the plaint, the plaintiff has executed a sale deed of the disputed property on 30.11.2022 in favour of defendant no.1, for sale consideration of ₹ 32.50 lakhs, out of which, she has received only ₹ 20,000 in cash and the remaining amount of ₹ 32.30 lakhs has not been paid by the above defendant to the plaintiff hence, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for getting the above registered sale deed cancelled. The plaintiff has also claimed the relief of permanent injunction for protecting her possession in the disputed property, which has already been sold to the above defendant.
18. The plaintiff has filed the above sale deed which discloses that the sale consideration was ₹ 32.50 lakhs out of which only ₹ 20,000 was paid in cash at the time of execution of the sale deed and for the remaining amount, three post dated cheques for the total amount of ₹ 32.30 lakhs were given by the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff, which were subsequently dishonoured on presentation by the concerned bank due to insufficient funds in the bank account of the defendant. The plaintiff has also filed the alleged dishonoured cheques given to her by the defendant as payment of balance sale consideration and the memo of cheques disclosing that they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the bank account of the above defendant.
19. It is apparent from the sale deed filed by the plaintiff that at the time of its execution in favour of the defendant no.1, the possession of the disputed property was handed to the defendant, which is contrary to the plaint allegation that she is still in possession of the disputed property. It is apparent that the plea taken by the plaintiff regarding her possession in the disputed property, is contrary to the recitals of the sale deed, and is barred under section 92 of the Evidence Act. It is also apparent from the above law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dahiben(supra) that since the sale has been completed and the title of the property has been transferred in favour of the transferee, in such a situation, even if, full sale consideration has not been paid by the transferee to the transferor, even then, the sale deed cannot be cancelled by the court. In such a situation, the transferor can file a suit for recovery of the balance sale consideration. It is also apparent from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (supra) that when the main relief of cancellation of sale deed of the disputed property is not granted to the plaintiff, then even the consequential relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted to him against the true owner of the disputed property, who has acquired its ownership on the basis of the above sale deed.
20. It is apparent that the plaintiff is no more the owner of the disputed property, since its ownership has already vested in defendant no.1 through sale deed dated 30.11.2022, which cannot be cancelled by the court for non-payment of sale consideration by the defendant to the plaintiff. Since the main relief of cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted to the plaintiff, even the consequential relief of permanent injunction also cannot be granted to her, for protecting her alleged possession in the disputed property, since the above defendant is the true owner of the disputed property.
21. For the reasons narrated aforesaid, it is apparent that the trial court has not committed any illegality in allowing the application of defendant no.2 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and consequently, rejecting the plaint. The impugned order is perfectly legal which warrants no interference from this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. This appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
22. The instant appeal is dismissed at the admission stage under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order and decree dated 28.08.2025 of the trial court is affirmed.
Order Date: 25.11.2025.
Jitendra/Himanshu/Mayank (Sandeep Jain, J.)