HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL No. - 644 of 2025 Court No. - 35 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator- respondents. 2. Appeal is admitted. 3. The instant appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff against impugned judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Meerut in Original Suit No.175 of 2025 (Mahesh Bansal vs. Jagdish and another), whereby defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been allowed and consequently, the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed. 4. It appears that the plaintiff has filed a suit in lower court that an agreement to sell regarding the disputed land had been executed in his favour on 22.09.2024 by defendant no.1 Jagdish Garg but, subsequently defendant no.1 had executed another registered agreement to sell on 10.12.2024 in favour of the defendant no.2. The plaintiff has claimed that since the earlier agreement to sell dated 22.09.2024 was in his favour, as such, the subsequent registered agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024 be declared ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the subsequent registered agreement to sell, is a fraudulent document which is void ab-initio. 5. The plaintiff claimed the relief of declaration that the subsequent agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024 be declared null and void, not binding on the plaintiff. Beside this, the plaintiff also sought the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant no.1 from executing sale deed in favour of the defendant no.2, on the basis of subsequent agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024. Further, it was claimed that the defendants be restrained from alienating the property to any person. 6. On the perusal of the document dated 22.09.2024, which is alleged to be an agreement to sell, executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mahesh Bansal .....Appellant(s) Jagdish Garg And Another .....Respondent(s) plaintiff, it appears that it is neither duly stamped nor registered. In view of the above, the document has got no sanctity in the eye of law and on that basis, no relief whatsoever can be granted to the plaintiff, by the Court. 7. Learned counsel for the caveator- respondent no.1 also accepted that the above document is waste paper, which confers no right on the plaintiff. 8. It is apparent that the reliefs, claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell cannot be granted by any Court. On the basis of that document, the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the instant suit. 9. It is also apparent that the trial court has also concluded that since the plaintiff is claiming cancellation of the registered agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024, as such, the plaintiff ought to have paid ad valorem Court fee under the provisions of Court Fee Act, which he has not paid. 10. In view of the above facts, the trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the plaint under order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 11. The instant appeal has got no merit and is accordingly, dismissed. 12. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 is affirmed. 13. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. 14. Office is directed to prepare the decree, accordingly. September 9, 2025 Jitendra FAPL No. 644 of 2025 2 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad