Bare injunction suits based only on an agreement to sell may be rejected when no enforceable right against third parties is shown.

A plaint in a bare injunction suit founded only on an agreement to sell against third parties must be read as a whole, and it may be rejected at the threshold if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. An agreement to sell does not create right, title or interest in immovable property; it gives only a personal claim against the vendor, and Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be used against a third party. Where the plaintiffs are only agreement holders, the vendors are not parties, the defendant is in settled possession, and no declaration of title is sought despite a cloud on title, the injunction suit is legally untenable. Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) is warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint in a suit for bare injunction, founded only on an agreement to sell against third parties, disclosed a cause of action or was barred by law so as to warrant rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A plaint must be examined on a meaningful reading of its averments and the documents relied upon, and it may be rejected at the threshold if it discloses no cause of action or if the suit is barred by law. An agreement to sell does not, by itself, create any right, title or interest in immovable property; at best it creates a personal obligation enforceable against the vendor, and limited protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cannot be asserted against a third party. Where the plaintiffs are only agreement holders, the vendors are not parties to the suit, the property is admittedly in the defendant's settled possession, and no declaration of title is sought despite a cloud on title, the suit for bare injunction is legally untenable. In such a case, the plaint is hit by the absence of a real enforceable right against the defendant and by the statutory bar against granting injunction to a plaintiff lacking a legal personal interest.

Conclusion: The plaint disclosed no sustainable cause of action against the defendant and was barred by law; rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) was warranted, in favour of the appellant.

---