Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

30-04-2026

1. Although, the present FA has been listed on admission, however, considering the issue involved in the present appeal, with the consent of the parties, the appeal has been heard finally.

2. The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’) has been filed by the appellant against the order and decree dated 30-01-2025 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge Balod, District Balod in Civil Suit No.9A/2022 whereby the application filed by the defendants No.1 and 2/respondents No.1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC has been allowed and the plaint filed by the plaintiff/appellant is rejected.

3. The appellant was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. He filed a civil suit on 12-04-2022 against the defendants for declaration of sale deed dated 05-10-2021 as null and void and for permanent injunction over the suit land Khasra No.860/2 area 0.56 hectare and Khasra No.860/3 area 0.22 hectare total area 0.78 hectare situated at Village Gundardehi, P.H. No.34, Thasil Gundardehi, District Balod. It is the pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff was in need of 10-12 lakhs rupees for his business and he borrowed the said amount from defendant No.2 who was engaged in money lending and on his instance a nominal sale deed has been executed in the name of defendant No.1 who was driver of the defendant No.2. The said nominal sale deed was executed on 05-10-2021 with respect to the suit property, which was produced for its registration before the Sub-Registrar Gundardehi. In the said sale deed the market value of the suit property was assigned Rs.21,85,000/-, however, as per the Collector Guideline, the said consideration was undervalued and therefore, the sale deed was referred to the Collector of Stamps as provided under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. As per the Collector Guideline, the value of the suit property comes to Rs.1,36,50,000/-. It is also pleadings that the details of the cheques towards sale consideration mentioned in the nominal sale deed. The defendant No.2 asked the plaintiff not to produce the said cheques for its clearance to the bank which were mentioned in the sale deed, though the plaintiff raised objection that he is in immediate need of money for his business, however, considering the fact that he already executed the nominal sale deed and produced before the Sub-Registrar Gundardehi, he was under compulsion for its clearance. Considering his need of money the plaintiff produced the cheque No.039391 to his bank for its clearance on 03-12-2021, but the said cheque was returned back on the ground that it was the old cheque which cannot be enforced. When the defendant No.2 informed about the said fact of return of cheque, he transferred the amount of Rs.10,85,000/- to the bank account of the plaintiff through RTGS mode of transfer from the bank account of defendant No.1. It is also pleading that the plaintiff had given two cheques to the defendant No.2 as to security of loan amount and by misusing one of the said cheque he withdrew the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the bank account of the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff was indebted only Rs.5,85,000/- towards defendant No.2. When the plaintiff realized the situation, he requested the defendant No.2 to cancel the transaction and to take his amount back from him, but defendants refused and then the civil suit has been filed by the plaintiff for aforesaid declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The plaintiff has valued his suit for Rs.21,85,000/- for cancellation of the sale deed and Rs.5000/- for permanent injunction. The summons were issued to the defendants and they made their appearance on 06-08-2022. on 09-02-2023 the defendants No.1 and 2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint which was replied by the plaintiff on 10-04-2023. The application filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 un