Possession claim under collaboration agreement fails where plaint lacks clear right to sue and unregistered document cannot support Section 53-A protection.

A plaint for possession must itself disclose a clear cause of action and locus standi, and at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the court is confined to the plaint and accompanying documents. On a meaningful reading, the collaboration agreement did not show that the first floor vested in the appellant, nor that respondent no. 1 acted as the appellant's agent. The appellant had no contractual right to claim possession from respondent no. 2. The court further held that even if treated as an agreement to sell, such a document does not by itself confer a right to possession, and an unregistered agreement cannot support protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act in view of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. The plaint was therefore liable to rejection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and locus standi for a suit for possession on the basis of the collaboration agreement, and whether rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was justified.

Analysis: For deciding rejection of a plaint, the court must confine itself to the plaint and the documents filed with it, and cannot look into the defence. On a meaningful reading of the plaint and the documents accompanying it, the collaboration agreement showed that the first floor was to fall in the share of respondent no. 1, and there was no material to show that respondent no. 1 had executed the agreement as agent of the appellant. The appellant was not shown to have any contractual right to claim possession from respondent no. 2. The court also held that, even assuming the agreement could be treated as an agreement to sell, such an agreement by itself does not confer a right to possession, and an unregistered document could not be relied upon to claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in view of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908.

Conclusion: The plaint did not disclose any enforceable cause of action in favour of the appellant, and rejection of the plaint was ; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint seeking possession must itself disclose a clear right to sue, and an unregistered agreement to sell or similar collaboration arrangement does not confer a possessory right or support a claim under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

---