The court examined the maintainability of a suit for declaration of sale deeds as void due to forgery under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, ultimately suggesting an amicable settlement due to the familial relationship between the parties.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The instant revision is arising out of an order passed by the trial court dated 15.09.2025 rejecting the application moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by respondent / plaintiff seeking declaration of five sale deeds as null and void as the same are forged and also praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

4. Mr. Siddharath Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that suit is not maintainable at all, as the same is filed on fictitious grounds without any substance and in respect of the five sale deeds there is no cause of action except one sale deed. There are five sale deeds, two sale deeds were executed on 21.01.2025 and three sale deeds were executed on 11.02.2025, 13.02.2025 and 17.03.2025 by defendant no. 1, real aunt of plaintiff to whom power of attorney was given on 24.04.2015 and being power of attorney holder defendant no. 1 executed three sale deeds whereby entire share of plaintiff was sold out and by virtue of two sale deeds, half of the share of plaintiff was sold out.

5. Mr. Sah argued that in fact, the suit filed by plaintiff – respondent has to be rejected primarily on the two grounds. Firstly, there is no cause of action and secondly, the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act since there is no consequential relief with regard to restoration of possession. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vasantha (dead) through legal representative Vs. Rajalakshmi alias Rajam (dead) through legal representative (2024) 5 SCC 282, particularly, paragraph 55.

6. He further submits that as per plaintiff, un-partitioned property was sold out, therefore, then in such an eventuality, plaintiff has to file a suit for partition and if he has not received consideration towards the sale deed, then he has to pray for recovery of money. He submits that neither the plaintiffs is praying for possession nor for partition and even he is not praying for recovery of money, therefore, in absence thereof the suit filed by the plaintiff is thoroughly misconceived, and as such, is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

7. He further argued that in respect of sale deeds, some amount has been credited in the account of the plaintiff as part consideration and as such, since he has received the money, he can pray for recovery of the remain part consideration, if any, which he has not prayed. In reference to this argument, he further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366 paragraph 29.1 to 29.9. He further submits that the suit was filed for cancellation of sale deeds on the ground of forgery but there is no specific pleading in this regard. In reference to this, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1950 ( Bishundeo Narain Vs. Seogeni Rai ) decided on 04.05.1951 particularly paragraph 25 and in the case of Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. U.V. Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 573

8. Mr. Sah, further submits that plaint was drafted cleverly, which is evident from the relief (f) of the plaint. Since the sui