# Smt. Gunjan Agrawal v. Ashish Kumar Gautam & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 300
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-25
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 916 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-gunjan-agrawal-v-ashish-kumar-gautam-anr-52782
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

justified in law in rejecting the plaint under O.
VII R. 11 CPC on the ground that, upon a
meaningful reading of the plaint and the
documents relied upon therein, the suit for
cancellation of registered sale deed and for
consequential relief of permanent injunction was
not
maintainable,
particularly
where
the
admitted case of the plaintiff is non-payment of
a part of sale consideration after execution and
registration of sale deed.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O.VII R. 11
- Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 92 - The plaintiff
instituted Original Suit No. 837 of 2023
seeking cancellation of a registered sale
deed dated 30.11.2022 executed by her in
favour of defendant no.1 in respect of the
disputed
property
and
a
decree
of
permanent
injunction,
alleging
that
though the sale deed was executed for a
consideration of ₹32.50 lakhs, only a
nominal amount was paid in cash and the
balance consideration was agreed to be
paid through post-dated cheques which
were subsequently dishonoured - It was
further pleaded that possession of the
property continued with the plaintiff,
whereas during the pendency of the suit,
defendant no.2, the husband of the
plaintiff,
claiming
title
through
a
subsequent sale deed dated 01.08.2023
executed
by
defendant
no.1,
was
impleaded as a party and moved an
application under O. VII R. 11 CPC
contending that non-payment of part of
the sale consideration did not invalidate a
completed sale and that the suit was not
maintainable - Trial Court allowed the
application, rejected the plaint by order
dated
28.08.2025,
and
the
plaintiff
thereafter
preferred
the
instant
first
appeal challenging the said rejection.
Held: According to the plaint, the plaintiff
executed a sale deed dated 30.11.2022 in
favour of defendant no.1 for a consideration of
₹32.50 lakhs, of which only ₹20,000 was paid in
cash and the balance amount of ₹32.30 lakhs
remains unpaid, consequently, the plaintiff has
instituted the instant suit seeking cancellation of
the said registered sale deed and a decree of
permanent injunction to protect her possession
over the disputed property - The sale deed filed
by the plaintiff records a consideration of ₹32.50
lakhs, of which only ₹20,000 was paid in cash at
the time of execution, while the balance amount
11 All. Smt. Gunjan Agrawal Vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam & Anr.
301
of ₹32.30 lakhs was tendered through three
post-dated cheques issued by defendant no.1,
all
of
which
were
dishonoured
upon
presentation due to insufficiency of funds, as
evidenced by the dishonoured of cheques and
the corresponding bank memos on record -
The sale deed on record clearly recites
delivery of possession of the disputed
property to defendant no.1 at the time of
execution, which is inconsistent with the
plaintiff's plea of continued possession and is
consequently barred by s. 92 of Evidence Act
- It is apparent that the plaintiff is no more
the owner of disputed property, since its
ownership has already vested in defendant
no.1 through sale deed dated 30.11.2022,
which cannot be cancelled by court for nonpayment of sale consideration by defendant
to the plaintiff - Since the main relief of
cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted
to plaintiff, even the consequential relief of
permanent injunction also cannot be granted
to her, for protecting her alleged possession
in disputed property,
since the
above
defendant is the true owner of disputed
property - The Trial Court committed no
illegality in allowing the application under O.
VII R. 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint; the
impugned order is legal, calls for no
interference in appellate jurisdiction, and the
appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed at the admission stage. [Paras 17
to 21] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Geetha
v.
Nanjundaswamy
and
others
MANU/SC/1199/2023; Crescent Petroleum
Ltd. v. m.v. ''MONCHEGORSK'' and others
MANU/MH/0112/2000;
Ramisetty
Venkatanna and others v. Nasyan Jamal Saheb
and others MANU/SC/0483/2023; Vivek
Kalask

## Text

300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for receiving the death benefits and
honours, posthumously bestowed on
their deceased son and given to
respondent. The Gujarat High Court
finding that the authorities had on
second inquiry not been satisfied with
respondent's claim of having married
the deceased, must be viewed in
context of its subsequent review order,
referring to allegations of fact in issue
and,
the
fact
of
the
honours
posthumously
bestowed,
given
to
respondent in the investiture ceremony
held at Rashtrapati Bhawan on 19th
April, 2009.

15. We appreciate the manner, in
which the Family Court held the trial and
confirm impugned judgment. The appeal is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 300
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 916 of 2025

Smt. Gunjan Agrawal ...Appellant
Versus
Ashish Kumar Gautam & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mayank, Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondent:
Himanshu Mishra, Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Trial Court was
justified in law in rejecting the plaint under O.
VII R. 11 CPC on the ground that, upon a
meaningful reading of the plaint and the
documents relied upon therein, the suit for
cancellation of registered sale deed and for
consequential relief of permanent injunction was
not
maintainable,
particularly
where
the
admitted case of the plaintiff is non-payment of
a part of sale consideration after execution and
registration of sale deed.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O.VII R. 11
- Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 92 - The plaintiff
instituted Original Suit No. 837 of 2023
seeking cancellation of a registered sale
deed dated 30.11.2022 executed by her in
favour of defendant no.1 in respect of the
disputed
property
and
a
decree
of
permanent
injunction,
alleging
that
though the sale deed was executed for a
consideration of ₹32.50 lakhs, only a
nominal amount was paid in cash and the
balance consideration was agreed to be
paid through post-dated cheques which
were subsequently dishonoured - It was
further pleaded that possession of the
property continued with the plaintiff,
whereas during the pendency of the suit,
defendant no.2, the husband of the
plaintiff,
claiming
title
through
a
subsequent sale deed dated 01.08.2023
executed
by
defendant
no.1,
was
impleaded as a party and moved an
application under O. VII R. 11 CPC
contending that non-payment of part of
the sale consideration did not invalidate a
completed sale and that the suit was not
maintainable - Trial Court allowed the
application, rejected the plaint by order
dated
28.08.2025,
and
the
plaintiff
thereafter
preferred
the
instant
first
appeal challenging the said rejection.
Held: According to the plaint, the plaintiff
executed a sale deed dated 30.11.2022 in
favour of defendant no.1 for a consideration of
₹32.50 lakhs, of which only ₹20,000 was paid in
cash and the balance amount of ₹32.30 lakhs
remains unpaid, consequently, the plaintiff has
instituted the instant suit seeking cancellation of
the said registered sale deed and a decree of
permanent injunction to protect her possession
over the disputed property - The sale deed filed
by the plaintiff records a consideration of ₹32.50
lakhs, of which only ₹20,000 was paid in cash at
the time of execution, while the balance amount
11 All. Smt. Gunjan Agrawal Vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam & Anr.
301
of ₹32.30 lakhs was tendered through three
post-dated cheques issued by defendant no.1,
all
of
which
were
dishonoured
upon
presentation due to insufficiency of funds, as
evidenced by the dishonoured of cheques and
the corresponding bank memos on record -
The sale deed on record clearly recites
delivery of possession of the disputed
property to defendant no.1 at the time of
execution, which is inconsistent with the
plaintiff's plea of continued possession and is
consequently barred by s. 92 of Evidence Act
- It is apparent that the plaintiff is no more
the owner of disputed property, since its
ownership has already vested in defendant
no.1 through sale deed dated 30.11.2022,
which cannot be cancelled by court for nonpayment of sale consideration by defendant
to the plaintiff - Since the main relief of
cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted
to plaintiff, even the consequential relief of
permanent injunction also cannot be granted
to her, for protecting her alleged possession
in disputed property,
since the
above
defendant is the true owner of disputed
property - The Trial Court committed no
illegality in allowing the application under O.
VII R. 11 CPC and rejecting the plaint; the
impugned order is legal, calls for no
interference in appellate jurisdiction, and the
appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed at the admission stage. [Paras 17
to 21] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Geetha
v.
Nanjundaswamy
and
others
MANU/SC/1199/2023; Crescent Petroleum
Ltd. v. m.v. ''MONCHEGORSK'' and others
MANU/MH/0112/2000;
Ramisetty
Venkatanna and others v. Nasyan Jamal Saheb
and others MANU/SC/0483/2023; Vivek
Kalaskar v. Arun Kumar Patel and others
MANU/CG/1653/2023 - referred to

Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) through
Lrs. v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through
Lrs. and others (2022)12 SCC 128, Dahiben v.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead
through LRs and others (2020) 7 SCC 366 -
relied on

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Evidence Act,
1872

List of Keywords
First appeal; Plaint; Rejection of plaint; O. VII R.
11 CPC; Original Suit; Impleadment; Peaceful
possession; Necessary party; Registered Sale
Deed; Sale consideration; Post-dated cheques;
Dishonour of cheques; Possession; Ownership;
Transfer of title; Cancellation of sale deed;
Permanent injunction; Maintainability of the suit;
Consequential relief; True owner; Recitals of the
sale deed; S. 92 of Evidence Act; Remedy for
recovery of balance sale consideration; Nonpayment of consideration; Legality; Infirmity;
Application of mind; Threshold rejection; No
interference warranted; Appellate jurisdiction;
Affirmation of trial court's order; Dismissal of
appeal at the admission stage.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. -
916 of 2025

From
the
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

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mayank, Rahul Sahai

Advs. for the Respondents:
Himanshu Mishra, Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal

(Delivered by 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.
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiffappellant 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
11 All. Smt. Gunjan Agrawal Vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam & Anr.
303
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 plaintiffappellant 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
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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-
11 All. Smt. Gunjan Agrawal Vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam & Anr.
305
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]
.
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 partpromised". 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 partpromised" 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:-
11 All. Smt. Gunjan Agrawal Vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam & Anr.
307

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.
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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,
11 All. Smt. Gunjan Agrawal Vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam & Anr.
309
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,
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 310
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 459 of 2025

Tulsiani Constructions & Developers Pvt.
Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Abhinav Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rohit Jaiswal

Issue for consideration
 Whether the present appeal is maintainable or
not?