Interim Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: #28
CS DJ 301/23
MADAN LAL Vs. SANJEEV RAWAL
13/10/2026
Present : None for the plaintiff.
Mr. Girdhar Gopal Rawal & Mr. Sanjeev Rawal,
both the defendants in person.
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11
R/W SECTION 151 CPC
1. The present application under Order VII Rule 11
read with Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of defendant
nos. 1 and 2 seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds; (a) that
the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property; (b)
that the suit is barred by limitation and Order II Rule 2 CPC; and
(c) that the plaint is deficient in valuation and court fee.
2. The case of the applicants is that the plaintiff claims
ownership of property bearing no. C-92, Mahendru Enclave,
Delhi, on the basis of an Agreement to Sell dated 10.03.1980 and
a receipt of the same date, whereas no sale deed was executed in
his favour. It is contended that the plaintiff, who is admittedly out
of possession, cannot maintain a suit for possession by asserting
ownership on the strength of an Agreement to Sell, even if
registered.
3. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the
plaintiff that the plaintiff purchased the property from its
Contd…..
-- 1 of 5 --
-/2/-
erstwhile owner, Shri Ram Kushan Gupta, through the aforesaid
registered documents; that the construction was raised from his
own funds. That, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the
Khasra Khatauni and that the property was assessed in his name
and house tax was paid by him. He further submits that the
defendants were permitted to occupy their respective portions as
licensees and challenges the documents dated 11.11.2008
executed in their favour by Late Sh. Sita Ram.
4. I have considered the submissions and perused the
pleadings. The scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is confined to
examining the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, along with the
documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defence raised by the
defendants cannot be treated as established at this stage.
5. The objection under Order II Rule 2 CPC cannot, by
itself, form the basis for rejection of the plaint under Order VII
Rule 11(d). Its applicability would require examination of the
cause of action and reliefs in the earlier suit, CS(OS) No.
573/2018, in comparison with those in the present suit. The
objections relating to limitation, valuation and court fee likewise
do not, on the material presently considered, establish a ground
for outright rejection of the plaint. Any deficiency in valuation or
court fee, if found, would have to be dealt with in accordance
with the procedure prescribed under Order VII Rule 11 (b) and (c)
CPC.
6. the principal objection concerns the plaintiff’s claim
Contd…..
-- 2 of 5 --
-/3/-
of ownership under the registered Agreement to Sell dated
10.03.1980. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
distinguishes a sale from a contract for sale. A sale of immovable
property of the value specified therein can be effected only by a
registered instrument, whereas a contract for sale merely creates a
right to obtain a sale deed and does not, of itself, create any
interest in or charge on the property. Registration of an Agreement
to Sell does not convert it into a deed of conveyance.
7. The Supreme Court in
‘The Correspondence,
R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar, 2025
INSC 490’, reiterated that an Agreement to Sell does not confer
title or create a proprietary interest in immovable property under
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Similarly, in
‘Ramesh
Chand (Dead) through LRs Vs. Suresh Chand, 2025 INSC 1059’,
the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an Agreement to Sell, even
when accompanied by other documents, does not itself transfer
ownership. At the highest, it may give rise to a contractual
remedy for specific performance, subject to law.
8. The plaintiff’s assertion that the Agreement to Sell is
registered, therefore, does not by itself establish that ownership
was conveyed to him. Likewise, construction raised from his own
funds, entry in revenue records, municipal assessment and
payment of house tax do not, independently, constitute a
Contd…..
-- 3 of 5 --
-/4/-
conveyance of ownership. These circumstances, however, have to
be considered in the context of the plaint as a whole and the
precise cause of action pleaded.
9. In the present case, the plaintiff not only asserts
ownership on the basis of the Agreement to Sell and receipt but
also pleads that the property was purchased from the erstwhile
owner, that he raised the construction, and that the defendants
were permitted to occupy their respective portions as licensees.
He seeks possession and challenges the documents executed in
favour of the defendants. Whether these pleadings and the
documents relied upon can ultimately establish any enforceable
right in the plaintiff, and what relief may be available to him in
law, cannot be conclusively determined merely by accepting the
defendants’ assertion that the plaintiff has no title.
10. The decisions relied upon by the applicants do not
dispense with the settled requirement that rejection under Order
VII Rule 11 must be justified from the plaint itself. The legal
effect of Section 54 is clear. However, the Court must still
examine whether, on a meaningful reading of the entire plaint, the
cause of action pleaded is wholly absent or the suit is barred by
law. The validity of the defendant’s documents, the alleged
licence and the precise legal consequences of the documents
relied upon by the plaintiff cannot be finally adjudicated by way
of present application.
11. In these circumstances, although the registered
Contd…..
-- 4 of 5 --
-/5/-
Agreement to Sell does not, by itself, convey ownership under
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaint cannot be
rejected merely by isolating that document from the remaining
pleadings and reliefs. Thus, for these reasons this Court finds that
the applicants have not established, at this stage, that the plaint as
a whole falls within either clause (a) or clause (d) of Order VII
Rule 11 CPC.
12. The application at hand is accordingly dismissed.
Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
13. List for completion of pleadings qua the Amended
Plaint, if any, / filing of affidavit of admission-denial of
documents / further proceedings on 29/01/2027.
(PREETI PAREWA)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/NORTH/ROHINI
DELHI/13/10/2026/AK
-- 5 of 5 --