https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781860 A civil suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed was held not to be barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, because the plaint disclosed allegations of coercion, misrepresentation and undue influence that required trial. On an Order VII Rule 11 application, the plaint had to be read as a whole and not tested against the defence version; the absence of an FIR or criminal complaint, disputes over the MoU, and objections under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act were matters for evidence. The Debt Recovery Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to cancel a registered conveyance, so the suit was maintainable and the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2025 16:17:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781860 A civil suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed was held not to be barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, because the plaint disclosed allegations of coercion, misrepresentation and undue influence that required trial. On an Order VII Rule 11 application, the plaint had to be read as a whole and not tested against the defence version; the absence of an FIR or criminal complaint, disputes over the MoU, and objections under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act were matters for evidence. The Debt Recovery Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to cancel a registered conveyance, so the suit was maintainable and the plaint could not be rejected at the threshold. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781860