Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 94
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Dr. Ameera Nazia Begum, w/o.Dr.Athar Mohammed Azharuddin – Petitioner
Versus
Sameena Waheda Nazli, w/o. Ahmed Badi Hussain Galib - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.2971 of 2024
Decided On : 09-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri K.K.Waghray
For the Respondent: Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy
A suit for cancellation of a sale deed based on coercion and fraud requires a full trial; non-payment of sale consideration alone does not justify cancellation.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(A) and Section 151 - Suit for cancellation of sale deed and perpetual injunction - Application for rejection of plaint dismissed by trial court on grounds of trial necessity despite the defendant's arguments regarding full receipt of sale consideration - Applicable law from Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali highlights that non-payment of sale consideration cannot support cancellation claims. (Paras 7, 12, 14, 17)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - The dismissal of a plaint cannot be based on clever drafting that creates illusions of causes of action, as emphasized in I.T.C. Limited's case and the need for full trial recognized. (Paras 7, 9, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the trial court's order dismissing an application to reject a plaint concerning alleged fraud and coercion in a sale deed executed on 16.11.2023. The petitioner argues that the entire sale amount has been paid, hence the suit for cancellation is untenable.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found insufficient grounds to reject the plaint without a full trial, affirming the necessity of trial to resolve disputed claims of fraud and coercion regarding the sale deed.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to reject the plaint regarding the sufficiency of cause of action for the suit involving cancellation of a sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claims of coercion and fraud, alongside claims of non-payment, warrant a full trial as they present questions of fact. The law prohibits partial rejections of plaints in civil disputes.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the sale deed has not been set aside. The court dismissed the civil revision petition, thereby upholding the order that did not cancel or invalidate the sale deed. The court's decision was based on the reasoning that the suit for cancellation, which was filed on grounds including coercion, fraud, and non-payment of consideration, requires a full trial to resolve the disputed facts. The court emphasized that there can be no partial rejection of the plaint and that the issues raised, including allegations of coercion and fraud, need to be determined after a full trial. Therefore, the sale deed remains in effect and has not been declared null or void by the court (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff filed for cancellation of sale deed. (Para 3) |
| 2. defendant argues lack of cause of action. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's decision to dismiss the petition. (Para 6 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. arguments regarding maintainability of the suit. (Para 7 , 9 , 15) |
| 5. relevant legal doctrines and principles from case law. (Para 10 , 11 , 16) |
| 6. court reflects on precedents and case specifics. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. court discusses the maintainability of suits and reliance on precedents. (Para 17) |
ORDER :
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 02.09.2024, passed by XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.599 of 2024 in O.S.No.100 of 2024.
2. Heard Sri K.K.Waghray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.11.2023 and for perpetual injunction against the defendant vide O.S.No.100 of 2024 on the file of XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
4. The defendant entered appearance and filed an application vide I.A.No.599 of 2024 under Order VII Rule 11(A) read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of cause of action for filing the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of application, it is averred that plaint does not disclose any cause of action for filing the suit; that the recitals of sale deed bearing document No.6368 of 2023, dated 16.11.2023 clearly shows that entire sale consideration was received by the vendor and therefore, the allegation that the sale deed has to be cancelled and that the same was obtained by fraud is baseless; that the plaintiff is well educated and that except bald, false allegations of coercion, terrorizing etc., without substantiating the same, plaintiff filed the suit; that with cleaver drafting, suit is filed by creating illusory cause of action and finally, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Counter has been filed by the plaintiff contending that she has signed sale deed dated 15.11.2023 in respect of suit schedule property only on constant threats, coercion, undue influence and harassment by the defendant; that she was under impression that agreement of sale was being registered and signed the document without being aware of the contents of the said document and therefore, the allegation that there is no cause of action is false. It is further averred that Memorandum of Understanding was entered to the effect that defendant paid amount for taking care of mother of plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the application.
6. The trial Court, taking into consideration the pleadings and submissions of both the parties, dismissed the application by the impugned order dated 02.09.2024, with an observation that until and unless full-fledged trial is conducted, the Court cannot conclude whether cause of action arose for filing the suit or not. Aggrieved by the dismissal of application, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the matter requires trial, without considering the fact that even as per recitals in the sale deed, entire sale consideration was paid, and the same was acknowledged by the plaintiff and as such title has already been conveyed to the defendant. He would further submit that trial Court failed to consider the settled position of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr LRs and others, [ AIR 2020 SC 3310 ], which clearly applies to the present case and thus, committed error in dismissing the application. He would further submit that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahiben’s case (cited supra) the trial Court ought to have rejected t
