[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Anupama Prakash vs Anirudh Singh And Others on 19 December, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Revision No. 100 of 2025
Anupama Prakash. ...........Revisionist.
Versus
Anirudh Singh and others. ........Respondents
Present:
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr.Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
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 suit
was filed for cancellation of registration of sale deed, therefore,
plaintiff cannot pleaded that he is in possession and when sale
deed was executed possession was handed over to the
purchased and in support of his arguments, he has placed
reliance on in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan and others (2021) 14
SCC 51, particularly, paragraph 7. He finally concluded his
argument by submitting that the trial court while dismissing
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has not applied his
judicial mind and as such order impugned is wholly illegal and
liable to be set aside.
9. On the other side, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent / plaintiff, argued that plea as taken in the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are completely
misconceived and the power of attorney given by the plaintiff
to defendant is only for limited purposes and not for the
purpose of execution of sale deed, therefore, sale deeds are
forged. He pointed out that the power of attorney conferred
defendant no.1 to execute an agreement to sell and not sale
deed and as such, in terms of Section 53-A of even at the time of
agreement to sell possession can be given order and past
performance. He further submits that in fact, defendant no. 1
misused the power of attorney and specific averment has been
made in this regard in paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint. He
further pointed out with regard to forgery by misusing power
of attorney specific averment has been made in paragraph 30
and 31 of the plaint. So far as relief (f) is concerned, he submits
that since admittedly property which was sold out was un-
partitioned property and therefore, unless the property is
partitioned by metes and bounds, every corner of the land,
presumed to be in joint possession. He pointed out that
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is misconceived since
the same is based on vague assertion without any substance
and even with regard to the cause of action there is no such
assertion, as such the trial court rightly rejected the application
moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In reference to the
judgments, as relied upon by Mr. Siddharath Sah, he submits
that all the judgments are distinguishable and are not
applicable to the facts of present case. In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2025 arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2549 of 2021 (P.
Kumarakurubaran Vs. P. Narayanan and others) 2025 INSC
598 particularly, paragraph 14.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, what
this Court observed that revisionist is the real aunt of plaintiff
and that is the reason the plaintiff executed the power of
attorney in favour of his real aunt, therefore, this Court is of the
view that the efforts may be made for amicable settlement
between the parties.
11. List this matter on 22.12.2025.
12. On that day, both the parties shall appear before this
Court either physically or virtually.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
19.12.2025
SKS
