##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF ON THE 1^st OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 480 of 2026 YASH GANDHI AND OTHERS Versus NILESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Singh - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Manish Yadav - Advocate for the respondent No.1 and 3.

ORDER This civil revision is preferred by the defendants under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugning order dated 18.03.2026 passed by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hatod, District Indore (M.P.) in RCSA No. 7 of 2025, whereby the application moved on behalf of the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint, was dismissed.

2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deeds against the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') mainly on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner and occupier of the suit lands situated in village Badi Kalmer, Tehsil Hatod, District Indore (M.P.) of Survey No. 870/2/2 and 807/2/1 total ad measuring 1.052 hectare. The defendants were having good relations with the plaintiff and SS1 S 0ii igg g :1nn n 5ein a :dg0 t u 2bt r iym e: eDN :I No 03 tE - VS0 eH9- r 2Vif 0 iEe 2Rd 6MA therefore the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the defendant no. 1 to sell the land bearing Survey No. 870/2/1 ad measuring 0.546 hectares for total sale consideration of Rs. 3,30,00,000/- and the defendant No. 2 entered into oral agreement with the plaintiff to purchase the land bearing survey No. 870/2/2 ad measuring 0.506 hectares for total sale consideration of Rs. 3,30,00,000/-. When the plaintiff demanded the amount of sale consideration, they assured that they will make the payment as per the Collector's guidelines through cheques at the time of execution of sale deeds and the balance amount will be paid by them in cash later on within a month from the date of execution of sale deeds and after making the payment of balance amount of Rs. 6,19,49,000/-, they will ask for the possession of the lands from the plaintiff.

3. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff was having confidence upon the the defendants, therefore he agreed to execute the sale deeds for lesser amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- and Rs. 19,51,000/- respectively with an assurance that he will receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,19,49,000/- within one month. Later on, the defendants neither paid the balance sale consideration nor the plaintiff delivered the possession of the lands to the defendants. As per the plaint allegations, the defendants practiced fraud with the plaintiff and got executed the sale deeds in their favour, which are illegal and liable to be cancelled on the ground that neither the complete sale consideration was disclosed in the sale deeds nor the sale consideration was paid to the seller nor the possession of the lands was delivered.

4. The plaintiff raised the issue of fraud, cheating and sought the relief of SS1 S 0ii igg g :1nn n 5ein a :dg0 t u 2bt r iym e: eDN :I No 03 tE - VS0 eH9- r 2Vif 0 iEe 2Rd 6MA cancellation of sale deeds along with the decree of perpetual injunction.

5. After appearance, the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing a suit for cancellation of sale deeds as the sale deeds cannot be cancelled upon the allegation of non-receipt of the balance sale consideration. It is also averred in the application that the full considerations were paid to the plaintiff as per the sale deeds and the plaint filed by the plaintiff is completely vexatious, which cannot be allowed and has been filed to harass and extort the defendants.

6. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 18.03.2026 dismissed the application on the ground that the