https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272702 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. en-us Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 May 2018 14:30:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272702 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272702