An executant of a deed seeking its annulment must file a suit for cancellation of the instrument rather than a mere declaration, and failure to seek substantive reliefs like possession, when available, constitutes clever drafting warranting rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 07.03.2025 in I.A.No.2827 of 2024 in O.S.No.53 of 2017, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

2. Petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.2827 of 2024 in O.S.No.53 of 2017, against the respondents before the trial Court under Section Order 7 rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint in O.S.No.53 of 2017. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners/defendants have preferred present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants herein mainly contended that respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit vide O.S.No.53 of 2017, to declare the registered documents bearing Nos.5192 and 5193 of 2017, as invalid as they are executed without sanction and authority and also for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit land. Respondents/plaintiffs have admitted the execution of agreement of sale-cum-GPA's bearing document Nos.11351 and 11352 of 2016 dated 25.05.2016 in para No.5 of the plaint and they have also admitted the issuance of notice cancelling the GPA's and it clearly shows the execution of agreement cum GPA. The General Power of Attorney (GPA) was executed in pursuance to agreement of sale after payment of sale consideration, therefore GPA is coupled with interest in view of Section 202 of Contract Act and it cannot be cancelled unilaterally and it is barred by law. The registered document can be cancelled through a registered cancellation deed and the cancellation by issuance of notice is unknown to law. In the plaint, it was stated that petitioner No.5/defendant No.5 had not been served with notice and it is not returned, therefore GPA of petitioner No.5 is not cancelled. Consequently, the sale deeds executed are valid and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial Court has passed a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. It was simply held that the plaint averments discloses the cause of action. Respondents/plaintiffs did not sought any relief against the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 25.05.2016, as such declaration of the sale deed is invalid, erroneous and against the law. The main relief should be regarding agreement of sale cum GPA. As the cancellation of the GPA is not in accordance with law, there is no cause of action. Clever drafting of the plaint by the respondents/plaintiffs created illusory cause of action. The GPA is not cancelled as per law under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, as such respondents/plaintiffs could not avail the remedy against the sale deed and thus the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

4. Parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.53 of 2017, for the sake of convenience

5. Plaintiffs in their plaint filed in O.S.No.53 of 2017 stated that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0-38 gts in Sy.No.120/EE and also to an extent of Ac.2-05 gts in Sy.No.122/AA2, situated at Velimela Village, Ramachandrapur Mandal, Sangareddy District, thus the plaintiff No.1 is having a total extent of Ac.3-03 gts. Plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner and the possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-38 gts in Sy.No.120/A2 and Ac.1-28 gts in Sy.No.122/A2 and thus he is having total extent of Ac.2-26 gts in the said survey numbers. The lands of the plaintiffs together are form