The main legal point established in the judgment is that an agreement to sell does not create any interest on the proposed vendee over the suit property and that a contract for sale of an immovable property will not by itself create any interest or charge on such property.

1. The petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have filed the present revision against the rejection of their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The main ground raised before the trial Court for rejecting the suit is that the plaint averments do not disclose a cause of action.

2. Heard Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the averments in the plaint do not disclose that the petitioners herein have a right over the suit property vis-a-vis., the interest of the defendants and that the suit has been filed at a surmise of a cause of action which is yet to arise. According to the learned Senior counsel, the alleged sale agreement dated 21.01.2004 entered between the plaintiff and one Malathiammal cannot be deemed to be a Deed of Conveyance. By placing reliance on Sections 54 & 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the alleged sale agreement between the plaintiff and the Malathiammal do not confer any title or transfer of any interest in the suit property and the protection envisaged under Section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act, also cannot be invoked against the petitioners herein, who are not the proposed vendors but only third parties to the agreement. It is his submission that the order of the trial Court, rejecting their application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that these aspects could be decided only during the course of trial, is improper.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the plaint averments clearly discloses the cause of action to maintain the suit and that the grounds raised by the petitioners are pre-mature, which can only be decided through proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidences. It is his submission that, when the plaintiff had realized that a sizeable portion of the property of Malathiammal was vacant, which ought to have been conveyed to the plaintiff, they had entered into a sale agreement on 21.01.2004. He also submitted that since the petitioners herein are contemplating to put up construction in the suit property, in which the plaintiffs have already entered into a sale agreement. Such construction would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiffs and would also result in multiplicity of proceedings and as such, he submitted that there was no infirmity in the findings of the trial Court in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

6. For the purpose of invoking the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the law has been well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions that, while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint alone and nothing more. The decision reported in 2012 (8) SCC 701 in the case of Ram V. Janak Singh and others is one such judgment reiterating this aspect. With this legal proposition in mind, I shall now venture to analyse the grounds raised by both the learned Senior counsels.

7. Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., empowers the trial Court to reject the plaint in various circumstances. Sub clause (a) of Rule 11 empowers the trial Court to reject the plaint, when the plaint averments do not disclose a cause of action. As such,it necessitates this Court to look into the plaint averments, to ascertain as to whether any cause of action is disclosed therein.

8. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from putting up construction in the B Schedule property, which is a vacant property, for which they had entered into an Agreement of Sale on 21.01.2004 with one Malathiammal. The property m