A defendant's fraudulent inducement on a contractual obligation supports a plaintiff's claim for cancellation of a sale deed and necessitates a full trial.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

These two appeals are taken up together as both the appeals arise out of the order passed in O.S.No.226/2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, rank of parties is referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under:

These two appeals are by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed a suit seeking a declaration that registered sale deed dated 21.02.2012 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 pertaining to the suit schedule property by declaring it as null and void. Consequently, injunction is also sought. In the suit, though plaintiff has admitted the sale transaction, he is primarily aggrieved by non-payment of the sale consideration, plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that the defendants No.1 and 2 had obtained the sale deed from plaintiff and the balance sale consideration was assured to be paid by issuing post dated cheques. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are guilty of not paying the balance sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- which is required to be paid by defendants. The present suit is filed alleging that the cheques issued by defendant No.3 on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 has bounced and therefore, the plaintiff alleges that the entire sale consideration is not paid and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to seek cancellation of the sale deed, on account of breach on the part of the defendants in not paying the balance sale consideration.

4. On receipt of summons, defendants No.1 and 2 have filed an application in I.A.No.XII under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity) to reject the plaint as barred by law. Defendants No.1 and 2 have contended that plaintiff having completed the transaction, is not entitled to seek cancellation of sale deed and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.

5. Defendant No.3 has filed I.A.No.VIII under order VII rule 11(a) of CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action. Learned Judge has allowed both the applications filed by defendants No.1 and 2 and defendant No.3 and plaint is rejected both under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC and order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The plaintiff has challenged these two orders by filing two separate appeals.

6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the plaintiff and defendants. Perused the records.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the prayer sought in the applications. We have also given our anxious consideration to the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge while rejecting the plaint invoking provisions of order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

8. The following points would arise for consideration:

i) Whether learned trial Judge erred in rejecting the plaint by applying the provisions of order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC and therefore, warrants interference at the hands of this Court ?

ii) What order?

FINDINGS ON POINT No.1:-

9. Before we delve into the case, it would be useful for this Court to cull out the relevant pleadings of the plaint and consequent prayer sought in the suit. Para Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint would be relevant and same is cull out, which reads as under:

“6] The plaintiff further submits that he has thereafter persistently followed the defendants to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.50,00,000/-, The defendants instructed the plaintiff to present the four cheques for encashment in the month of May 2012. At the instructions of defendants the plaintiff presented Cheque bearing No. 018162 dated 24-02-2012 drawn on Shri