1 2026:CGHC:20105-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 54 of 2025 1 - Sourabh Rathi S/o Shri Sonhan Lal Rathi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Raipur Road, Aoudyogik Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus 1 - Arjun Dewangan S/o Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Subhash Nagar, Dak Bangla, Ward No. 18, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhmatari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rupesh Jhawar S/o Madanlal Jhawar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No. 33, Senet City, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhmatari Chhattisgarh. 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. Chakresh Tiwari and Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.05.06 19:17:10 +0530 2 30-04-2026 1. Although, the present FA has been listed on admission, however, considering the issue involved in the present appeal, with the consent of the parties, the appeal has been heard finally. 2. The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’) has been filed by the appellant against the order and decree dated 30-01-2025 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge Balod, District Balod in Civil Suit No.9A/2022 whereby the application filed by the defendants No.1 and 2/respondents No.1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC has been allowed and the plaint filed by the plaintiff/appellant is rejected. 3. The appellant was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. He filed a civil suit on 12-04-2022 against the defendants for declaration of sale deed dated 05-10-2021 as null and void and for permanent injunction over the suit land Khasra No.860/2 area 0.56 hectare and Khasra No.860/3 area 0.22 hectare total area 0.78 hectare situated at Village Gundardehi, P.H. No.34, Thasil Gundardehi, District Balod. It is the pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff was in need of 10-12 lakhs rupees for his business and he borrowed the said amount from defendant No.2 who was engaged in money lending and on his instance a nominal sale deed has been executed in the name of defendant No.1 who was driver of the defendant No.2. The said nominal sale deed was executed on 05-10-2021 with respect to the suit property, which was produced for its registration before the Sub-Registrar Gundardehi. In the 3 said sale deed the market value of the suit property was assigned Rs.21,85,000/-, however, as per the Collector Guideline, the said consideration was undervalued and therefore, the sale deed was referred to the Collector of Stamps as provided under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. As per the Collector Guideline, the value of the suit property comes to Rs.1,36,50,000/-. It is also pleadings that the details of the cheques towards sale consideration mentioned in the nominal sale deed. The defendant No.2 asked the plaintiff not to produce the said cheques for its clearance to the bank which were mentioned in the sale deed, though the plaintiff raised objection that he is in immediate need of money for his business, however, considering the fact that he already executed the nominal sale deed and produced before the Sub-Registrar Gundardehi, he was under compulsion for its clearance. Considering his need of money the plaintiff produced the cheque No.039391 to his bank for its clearance on 03-12-2021, but the said cheque was returned back on the ground that it was the old cheque which cannot be enforced. When the defendant No.2 informed about the said fact of return of cheque, he transferred the amount of Rs.10,85,000/- to the bank account of the plaintiff through RTGS mode of transfer from the bank account of defendant No.1. It is also pleading that the plaintiff had given two cheques to the defendant No.2 as to security of loan amount and by misusing one of the said cheque he withdrew the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the bank account of the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff was indebted only Rs.5,85,000/- towards defendant No.2. When the plaintiff realized the situation, he requested 4 the defendant No.2 to cancel the transaction and to take his amount back from him, but defendants refused and then the civil suit has been filed by the plaintiff for aforesaid declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff has valued his suit for Rs.21,85,000/- for cancellation of the sale deed and Rs.5000/- for permanent injunction. The summons were issued to the defendants and they made their appearance on 06- 08-2022. on 09-02-2023 the defendants No.1 and 2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint which was replied by the plaintiff on 10-04-2023. The application filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was decided by the learned trial Court on 30-01-2025 and the same was allowed and the plaint has been rejected holding that the suit of the plaintiff is based on unregistered sale deed dated 05-10-2021, the title has not been transferred in favour of defendant No.1 by the said unregistered sale deed and therefore, there is no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff to filed the suit and the suit is not maintainable and therefore, the plaint has been rejected under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC which is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order and decree passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous on the facts as well as law. He would submit that at the time of consideration of the application of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC only the plaint averment are to be considered. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 which 5 was produced before the Sub-Registrar for its registration, however, the Sub-Registrar considering the deed to be undervalued and no proper stamp duty have been paid on it referred it to the Collector of Stamps for its determination. As per Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, the deed shall operate from the time which it would have commenced to operate, i.e., from the date of execution of the deed. Even if the deed was subsequently registered, it would operate from the date of its execution and would not operate from the date of the registration. Therefore, the defendants cannot say that there was no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff on 05-10-2021 when he executed the sale deed and produced it before the Sub-Registrar for its registration. He would further submit that during pendency of the present appeal, the Collector of Stamps Balod has decided the case on 06-10-2022 and determined the deficit stamp duty over the deed. The said deficit stamp duty of Rs.7,16,525/- has been paid by the defendant no.1 through the bank challan dated 28 September, 2025 and thus, the objection of the defendants has already been met out. He would also submit that even if the execution of sale deed is sufficient to invoke cause of action in favour of the plaintiff to challenge the transaction and it does not depend upon its registration. The consideration of the learned trial Court is completely against the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act. In support of his submission he would rely upon the judgment of Har Narain (dead) by LRs. Vs. Mam Chand (dead) by LRs. and others, (2010) 13 SCC 128. He lastly submits that in view of the provision of Section 47 of the Registration Act, judgment of Har Narain 6 (supra) and also further development that defendant No.1 has already paid the deficit stamp duty on 28-09-2025, the appeal may be allowed and the matter may be remitted back to the learned trial Court for its decision on merits by setting aside the impugned order and decree. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.2 oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint that cause of action arose in his favour on 05-10-2021, however, the deficit stamp duty has been paid by them on 28-09-2025 and thus, the suit of the plaintiff, at present barred by limitation and after payment of deficit stamp duty, a new cause of action arose in his favour which he has to independently challenge by way of fresh suit. Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court and also gone through the material annexed with the present appeal. 7. Present is an appeal arising out of the order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by defendants No.1 and 2. There is no dispute about the maintainability of the first appeal in view of Section 2(2) of the CPC as the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has effect of a decree and therefore, a regular appeal is maintainable. 8. While considering the present appeal we have gone through the 7 pleadings of the parties and the application filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 before the learned trial Court. 9. The plaintiff is challenging the deed dated 05-10-2021 by saying that it is a nominal sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.1 on the instance of defendant No.2 against the loan advanced to him by defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 is driver of the defendant No.2 and as the security of load amount the defendant No.2 got the nominal sale deed executed in favour of his driver, i.e., defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that on 05-10-2021 the deed was executed and signed by the plaintiff and produced before the Sub-Registrar for its registration. However, the Sub-Registrar considered the deed as undervalued and referred it to the Collector of Stamps Balod for its determination as provided under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. On 12-04-2022 when the suit was filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court there was no adjudication by the Collector of Stamps with respect to the deficit stamp duty on the deed and the adjudication was made only on 06-10-2022, i.e, during pendency of the suit. The defendant No.1 and 2 filed their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on 09-02-2023 with the averments that:- “3- ;g fd oknh ds }kjk nkok mfpr ewY;kadu lgh ugha fd;k gS rFkk mfpr U;k; 'kqYd pLik ugha fd;k gSA 4- ;g fd mijksDr cSukek esa layXu fd;s x;s LVkEi i= esa fookn fLFkfr gksus dkj.k cSukek dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ ugha gqbZ gSA 5- ;g fd izdj.k esa dksbZ okn gsrqd ugha gS rFkk oknh ds }kjk ftl nLrkost dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djus ds fy, nkok izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mldk iath;u iw.kZ ugha gSA” 8 10. The plaintiff replied the application and averred in his reply that:- “¼3½ ;g fd] C;ku vkosnu i= dafMdk 03 badkj gSA oknh }kjk ?kks"k.kk ds fy, nkok dk ewY;kadu fodz; i= ds ewY;kuqlkj U;k;ky; ds vkfFkZd {ks=kf/kdkj ds fy;s fd;k gS rFkk U;k; 'kqYd vf/kfu;e 1870 ds vuqlwph&2 vkfVZdy&17 ds vuqlkj fu;r U;k; 'kqYd ?kks"k.kk ckcr~ 500@& # pLik fd;k gS] tks fd mfpr gSA ¼4½ ;g fd] C;ku vkosnu i= dafMdk 04 bl lq/kkj ds lkFk Lohdkj gS fd mijksDr vokLrfod fodz; i= ds fu"iknu ds fy, iath;u dk;kZy; esa fodzsrk ls tks vkSipkfjdrk iw.kZ djuk gksrk gS og iw.kZ dj fy;k x;k gS dsoy izfroknh dz- 1 o 2 dks dysDVj vkWQ LVkEi ckyksn }kjk fodz; i= esa mYysf[kr Hkwfe dk tks cktkj Hkko fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS] ds vuqlkj vfr’ks"k LVkEi ,oa iath;u 'kqYd nsus ij iath;u gksuk gS] tks fd izfroknh dz- 1 o 2 dks djuk gS fdUrq izfroknh dz- 2 dks ;g vPNh rjg ls tkudkjh gS fd mlds }kjk oknh ls izfroknh dz- 1 ds uke ij ftl Hkwfe dk dtZ dh lqj{kk ds fy, tks vokLrfod fodz; i= fu"ikfnr djk;k gS mldk okLrfod cktkj ewY; 1]36]50]000@& # gS vkSj ml vuqlkj LVkEi ,oa iath;u 'kqYd nsus ls izfroknh dz- 1 o 2 dks dksbZ ykHk ugha gksuk gS D;ksafd mijksDr fodz; i= okLrfod fodz; i= u gksdj dtZ dh lqj{kk ds fy, oknh ls fy[kok;k x;k vokLrfod fodz; i= gS RkFkk mijksDr vokLrfod fodz; i= fnukad 05-10-2021 U;k;ky; ls fujLr gksuk gSA ¼5½ ;g fd] C;ku vkosnu i= dafMdk 05 Li"V #i ls badkj gSA oknh }kjk vius okn i= dh dafMdk 12 es okn dk dkj.k Li"V #i ls vfHkdFku fd;k gS oknh us izfroknh dz- 2 ds dFkukuqlkj izfroknh dz- 1 ds uke ij tks fodz; i= fnukad 05- 10-2021 fu"ikfnr fd;k gS mls vokLrfod fodz; i= gksus ds laca/k es vuqrks"k pkgk gS tks fodz; i= dk iath;u iw.kZ ugh gksus ls oknh }kjk izLrqr nkok vifjiDo ugh gSA” 11. The question arises for consideration would be the commencement of period from which the deed is said to have been executed whether it is executable on the date of its execution or on the 9 date of its registration when it requires registration. 12. Undoubtedly, the value of the property is more than Rs.100 and therefore, on account of transfer with respect the suit property requires registration in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 47 of the Registration Act provides the time from which registered document operates. It is necessary here to notice the provision of Section 47 of the Registration Act which reads as under:- “47. Time from which registered document operates.—A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.” 13. In the case of Har Narain (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 13 of its judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “13. Section 54 of the Act, 1882 mandatorily requires that the sale of any immovable property of the value of hundred rupees and upward can be made only by a registered instrument. Section 47 of the Act, 1908, provides that registration of the document shall relate back to the date of the execution of the document. Thus, the aforesaid two provisions make it crystal clear that sale deed in question requires registration. Even if registration had been done subsequent to the filing of suit, it related back to the date of 10 execution of the sale deed, which was prior to institution of the suit.” 14. We have also considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the deficit stamp duty has been paid by the defendant No.1 on 28-09-2025 and now the registration of the deed itself has been completed. The said submission made by learned counsel for the appellant has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2. The rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff is on the ground that on 05-10-2021 the deed was not registered and since the deed was not registered, no title could be passed in favour of the defendant No.1 and therefore, the plaintiff have no cause of action on that day when he pleaded in the suit about cause of action. As provided under Section 47 of the Registration Act and in the case of Har Narain (supra), the effect of registration relates back to the date of execution of deed and the deed was made operative from the date of its execution and not from the date of its registration. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order and decree passed by the learned trial Court is based on the misappreciation of facts as well as law while deciding the application of the defendants No.1 and 2 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and the same is not sustainable. 15. Accordingly, we allow the present appeal filed by the appellant. The impugned order and decree passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court to decide the suit on its own merits in accordance with law. 11 16. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 15-05-2026. Registry is directed to immediately remit the record of learned trial Court to the trial Court concerned. 17. Parties shall bear their own cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil