An oral agreement for the sale of immovable property is unenforceable without a written and registered agreement under the Registration Act and Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Jain, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 C.P.C. against the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Judge Small Causes, Bulandshahr in O.S. No.1054 of 2022 (Old No.790 of 2022) Irfan Quraishi Vs. U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Limited & others, whereby the application of the defendant No.2 Smt. Aparna Bajpai under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and consequently, the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground of being barred by law, want of cause of action as well as, due to the insufficient court fees paid.

2. The factual matrix is that the plaintiff–appellant filed a suit, being O.S. No. 1054 of 2022, with the averments that father of defendant no.2, Late Chandradutt Bajpai, was the owner in possession, and proprietor of M/S CDS Chemicals, situated at C-4, Industrial Area (Jokhabad), Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. It was further averred that an oral agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the father of defendant no.2 for the sale of the aforesaid plot for a consideration of Rs.70 lacs. Out of the said consideration, a sum of Rs.29 lacs was paid through three demand drafts and a further sum of Rs.6 lacs was paid in cash on 10.07.2008. It was also averred that since then, the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed plot.

3. It was further averred that the plaintiff repeatedly requested the father of defendant no.2 to execute the sale deed in respect of the disputed plot; however, he continued to defer the same on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the father of defendant no.2 died due to Covid-19 in the year 2021, leaving behind defendant no.2 as his legal heir.

4. It was further averred that thereafter, the plaintiff remained in contact with defendant no.2 and requested her to execute the sale deed in respect of the disputed plot, however, defendant no.2 continued to assure the plaintiff that she would execute the sale deed in his favour after completing due formalities; however, when she ultimately refused to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) that by decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant no.2, the defendant No.2 be restrained from dispossessing him, interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff or in any other manner whatsoever.

(b) that by decree of mandatory injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant no.2, the defendant No.2 be directed to complete the necessary formalities in the office of defendant no.1, for transferring the disputed plot No. C-4, Industrial Area (Jokhabad), Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr by receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff.

(c) any other relief which in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may deem appropriate to grant in favour of the plaintiff.

5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no.2 Smt. Aparna Bajpai moved an application 72-C2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no oral or written agreement in respect of the disputed property was ever entered into between her father and the plaintiff. It was further averred that the plaintiff has instituted the suit on the basis of photocopies of the alleged demand drafts, which was not legally maintainable. It was also averred that the date of alleged agreement and duration during which it was to be performed, was not disclosed by the plaintiff.

6. It was further averred that the suit should have been filed for the relief of specific performance of a cont