Pleadings and title disputes under Order VII Rule 11 cannot be rejected when revocation and sale deed validity require trial.

Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is confined to the plaint averments and is permissible only when no cause of action is disclosed, the suit is barred by law, or another limited ground is made out on the face of the plaint. Here, the pleadings raised a distinct challenge to sale deeds executed after alleged revocation of authority, and the court held that this could not be shut out at the threshold. Unregistered documents did not by themselves convey title or create an interest in immovable property, and questions on revocation, validity of the sale deeds, mutation entries, and title required trial. Insufficient court fee also could not justify outright rejection without an opportunity to cure the defect. The plaint therefore had to be tried on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the pleadings disclosed no cause of action, were barred by law, or suffered from jurisdictional and court-fee defects, despite the plaint raising a distinct challenge to sale deeds executed after revocation of authority.

Analysis: Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is confined to the averments in the plaint and can be ordered only when the plaint, on its face, discloses no cause of action, is barred by law, or is otherwise hit by the limited grounds contained in the rule. The pleadings here disclosed a specific and independent challenge to sale deeds executed after the alleged revocation of the board resolution and power of attorney. The documents relied upon were unregistered, and under Sections 17, 23 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, such documents do not by themselves convey title or create an interest in immovable property. An unregistered agreement to sell may at best be used for collateral or specific-performance purposes, not as a completed transfer. The pleadings also raised factual questions on the true nature of the transaction, the effect of revocation, the validity of the sale deeds, and the correctness of the mutation entries, all of which required trial. Revenue entries are not conclusive of title, and title disputes over immovable property fall within civil court adjudication. The plea of insufficient court fee could not justify immediate rejection without an opportunity to make good the deficiency. The High Court, therefore, erred in treating the later cause of action as academic and in rejecting the plaint in its entirety.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected at the threshold, and the civil suit had to be tried on merits.

---