J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

I.A. 17472/2022 (under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC on behalf of the defendant No. 1 seeking rejection of plaint)

1. The application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC"), has been filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1, Mr. Shyam Lal Goel for rejection of the suit.

2. Briefly stated, a suit for Partition and Permanent Injunction has been filed by the plaintiff claiming the right and title as an absolute and joint owner of the ground floor, basement and first floor with Roof rights up to sky of Shop No. 423, D Block, New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033, admeasuring 636 square fts. on the basis of a registered Agreement to Sell and registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 18.03.2004 and 25.07.2005; Receipt, Special Power of Attorney (SPA), Undertaking, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit and Possession letter, all dated 25.07.2005, executed in his favour by Shri Anand Goel. The Suit Property is a leasehold property which was allotted to Shri Hari Kishan Dass in the year 1971, by the DDA. Until the leasehold property is converted into a freehold property, no sale and purchase transaction can take place for the same. The only way to create a third party right by way of a registered lease of assignment/sub-

lease is executed by the transferor/lessor.

3. It is further submitted by defendant No.1 that the above documents relied upon by the plaintiff do not create any right, title and interest in the suit property, as none of the above documents is a registered Deed of Conveyance and as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1908") any document for sale of property valued at above Rs. 100 is required to be compulsorily registered. Further, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the "TPA"), a transfer of ownership of immovable property can only be made through a registered instrument. Reliance has been placed on Suraj Lamp & Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana & Another (2012) 1 SCC 656 and Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited v. Nagraj Ganeshmal Jain and Others (2017) 15 SCC 316, in this regard.

4. Thus, it is claimed that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to seek partition. It is further asserted that the plaintiff also does not have any locus standi.

5. It is also submitted and the same cannot be transferred by the documents relied upon by the plaintiff.

6. Moreover, the defendant Nos. 1 Shyam Lal Goel, defendant Nos. 4 to 6 Smt Kanta Devi, Smt Kamlesh Gupta, Smt Madhu Gupta, deceased husband of defendant No. 3 i.e. Late Shri Pawan Goel and predecessor in interest of defendant Nos. 7 to 11 i.e. Late Shri R.A. Gupta, had filed a suit for Declaration, Possession and Permanent Injunction against the plaintiff in the year 2004, in respect of the Ground Floor of the suit property, which clearly indicates that the title of the plaintiff in the suit property was questioned in the year 2004. The present suit has been filed after ten years, in the year 2017, and is barred by limitation.

7. It is further submitted that the registered Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 18.03.2004, in favour of the plaintiff have been declared null and void except to the extent of 1/8th share in respect of the suit property by the learned Additional District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide Judgment dated 27.05.2016 in Civil Suit bearing No. CS(OS) 129/2016, titled "Shyam Lal Goel & Ors. vs. Anand Goel & Ors." Despite the Agreement to Sell etc., in favour of the plaintiff being declared null and void except to the extent of 1/8th share, the present suit has been filed for partition of the entire property, which is not maintainable. Therefore, the defendant has sought rejection of the suit of the plaintiff.

8. The learned counsel on behalf of Plaintiff had submitted that he does not wish to file a formal Rep