Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution – Appellant
Versus
B. Gunashekar and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5200 of 2025 [Arising From SLP (C) No. 13679 of 2022]
Decided On : 16-04-2025
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by a public charitable trust against the dismissal of its application under Order VII Rules 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for rejection of the plaint in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondents. (!) (!) (!) The trust had been in continuous possession of the suit property since 1905, initially under lease and later by formal conveyance. (!) The respondents claimed rights based solely on an unregistered agreement to sell dated 10.04.2018, alleging payment of Rs. 75 lakhs in cash as advance, and sought to restrain the trust from alienating the property. (!)
An agreement to sell does not create any interest in or charge on immovable property, as it merely evidences a promise to execute a sale deed upon fulfillment of terms. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Consequently, agreement holders lack locus standi to maintain a suit for injunction against a third party in settled possession, particularly where title is disputed and no declaratory relief is sought. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) A plaint must disclose a real cause of action—a bundle of material facts supporting a legal right enforceable against the defendant—failing which it warrants rejection at the threshold to prevent abuse of process. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Where title is under a cloud, a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration. (!) (!) (!)
The court scrutinized the plaint averments alongside relied-upon documents, finding no privity of contract between parties, no personal interest in the respondents, and the suit barred by law. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Respondents' rights, if any, lie only against their vendors via specific performance; protection under part performance (Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882) is unavailable against third parties without possession or fulfillment of conditions. (!) (!) (!)
The trial court and High Court erred in requiring trial on mixed questions, overlooking statutory bars and fictitious cause of action. (!) (!) (!)
Courts must notify jurisdictional Income Tax authorities of suits claiming cash payments of Rs. 2,00,000 or above toward any transaction, for verification under Sections 269ST and 271DA, Income Tax Act. (!) (!) Similar intimation required from Sub-Registrars on registration documents; non-compliance invites disciplinary action. (!) (!) These measures promote a digital economy and curb black money. (!) (!)
Impugned orders set aside; plaint rejected. Directions circulated for compliance; parties to bear costs. (!) (!) (!) (!) Respondents cautioned against frivolous litigation. (!)
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru1 [Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Civil Revision Petition No. 130 of 2021, whereby the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant against the order of the trial Court dated 11.06.2021 rejecting their application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 [For short “CPC”] for rejection of the plaint.
3. On 12.08.2022, when the matter was taken up for consideration, this Court has passed the following order:
“Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.
There will be stay of the operation of proceedings in O.S. No. 25968 of 2018 pending before the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, MayoHall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-22) till the next date of hearing.”
3.1. On 22.11.2024, the aforesaid interim order was extended by this Court and is in force till date.
BRIEF FACTS
4. The appellant viz. R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution, was established in the year 1873 as a public charitable trust, dedicated to serving first-generation learners from marginalized communities in urban Bangalore. In 1905, a significant parcel of land, then known as 'the Sappers Practice Ground' was leased to the appellant. Subsequently, in 1929, this property was formally conveyed to the appellant by the Municipal Commissioner of Civil and Military Station of Bangalore. Since then, the appellant has been in continuous possession of the said property, utilizing it for various educational purposes including Pre-University Colleges, first-grade degree colleges, and sporting facilities serving both their institutions and the youth of Bangalore.
5. The respondents filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 25968 of 2018 against the appellant, before the City Civil Court and Sessions Judge at Bangalore, seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from creating any third-party interest over the suit schedule property, based on an alleged agreement to sell executed by the respondents and Ramesh S. Reddy with one Maheshwari Ranganathan and others, in respect of the suit schedule property, on 10th April, 2018 for a sale consideration of Rs. 9,00,00,000/- for which, they claim to have paid Rs. 75,00,000/- as an advance payment. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellant was trying to manipulate the title deeds of the suit schedule property with an intention to alienate or dispose of the same to third parties.
6. After service of summons, the appellant filed an application bearing I.A. No. 3 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, inter-alia stating that the respondents are only agreement holders and not owners of the suit schedule property and that, mere execution of an agreement to sell does not create or confer any right or interest in the property in favour of the proposed purchasers.
7. The respondents filed their objections to the aforesaid application filed by the appellant.
8. Upon hearing both sides, the trial Court rejected the aforesaid application seeking rejection of the plaint on 03.06.2020. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred C.R.P. No. 205 of 2020, which was allowed in part, by the High Court vide order dated 19.11.2020. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
“The petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 3.6.2020 in O.S. No. 25968/2018 on the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru is set aside. The petitioner’s application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure is restored for reconsideration calling upon the Civil Court to decide on merits of the application in accordance with law in the light of the grounds urged in an expedited manner but within an outer limit of three months from the date of first hearing after this order.”
9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the trial Court reconsidered the applic
An agreement to sell does not confer any interest in property, and a suit for injunction is not maintainable when title is disputed and the plaintiffs lack personal interest.
A suit is filed with ....
(1) Rejection of plaint – Suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of insufficient Court fee – Law mandates that Plaintiff be afforded opportunity to rectify such deficiency.(2) Agreement to sel....
Unregistered agreements do not confer rights in property; a valid title requires a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Only a registered sale deed conveys ownership; unregistered documents such as Agreements to Sell do not confer rights in property, making a suit based on them subject to rejection.
An agreement to sell does not confer any legal right until formally executed; merely having such an agreement without a registered sale deed leaves no interest to sue third parties.
Valid sale deeds can only be challenged through competent court orders; transactions executed in violation of interim injunctions are treated as void.
The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
An agreement to sell is not void ab initio if it is subject to a condition that the seller will obtain the necessary permission from the authorities to convert the land from new tenure to old tenure ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
