Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8576 (UTT)

Anupama Prakash v. Anirudh Singh

2026-01-06

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. The instant revision has been preferred by the defendant against the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun in Original Suit No. 279 of 2025, titled as Anirudh Singh vs. Anupama Prakash and others, whereby the application preferred by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC , i.e., paper no. 26A1 has been rejected. 2. Instant matter was heard earlier on different stages and on 25.09.2025, further proceeding of O.S. No. 279 of 2025 was stayed. Relevant paragraphs of the order dated 25.09.2025 are reproduced herein as under:- 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that plaintiff is nephew of the defendant no. 1 and he has given general power of attorney to the defendant / revisionist on 24.04.2015 and being power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 / revisionist executed five sale deeds. 4. Apart from this, he submits that as per averment made in the plaint power of attorney dated 24.04.2015 was revoked on 29.03.2025, the date after execution of the sale deeds, therefore, there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the suit. He further submits that suit property was undervalued and by taking all these pleas the defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint, however, the same has been rejected and being aggrieved with the same, instant revision has been preferred. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that undisputedly, as per the plaintiff itself registered power of attorney was revoked after execution of the five sale deeds, therefore, for plaintiff there was no cause of action to file suit for cancellation of sale deeds, which were executed prior to the revocation of power of attorney. He further argued that total valuation of the property is approx. Rs. Nine Crore but it was undervalued and the plaintiff valued it only Rs. 24 lakh. He further argued that while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, these two important aspects have not been considered by the trial court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9472 of 2023 (V. Ravikumar Vs. 24 lakh. He further argued that while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, these two important aspects have not been considered by the trial court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9472 of 2023 (V. Ravikumar Vs. S. Kumar) 2025 INSC 343 , particularly, by place reliance to paragraph 8 and submits that if power of attorney is revoked, after execution of sale deed, then no cause of action will arise for institution of suit for cancellation of sale deed . 3. The main contention of the revisionist is that as per the plaint, the power of attorney dated 24.04.2015 was revoked on 25.03.2025, after execution of five sale deeds which are the subject matter of the suit, and, therefore, there is no cause of action to file the suit, and, furthermore the suit was also undervalued and on these two grounds, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been filed, however, the trial court by the order impugned reject the suit and being aggrieved instant civil revision has been filed. 4. On the previous date after hearing at length this Court passed the following order on 19.12.2025. 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. 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. 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 2 1950 (Bishundeo Narain Vs. Seogeni Rai) decided on 04.05.1951 particularly paragraph 25 and in the case of Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. In reference to this, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2 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 3 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 unpartitioned property and therefore, unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds, every corner of the land, presumed to be in joint possession. So far as relief (f) is concerned, he submits that since admittedly property which was sold out was unpartitioned 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. After passing the aforesaid order, both the parties were directed to appear through V.C. This Court heard their respective contention against each other. The respondents/plaintiffs contended that he has not received entire money and no power of attorney was given to execute the sale deed. On the other hand, the defendant contended that entire money towards consideration has been paid, therefore, their rival contentions reveals that all these contentions are admittedly disputed question of facts and cannot be examined within the parameter of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist, at this juncture, submits that the plea as raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 may be permitted to raise before the trial court for the purposes of framing preliminary issues which has not been rejected by the other side. 6. In such view of the matter, the instant civil revision is disposed of finally with the direction to the trial court to proceed with the trial and plaintiff/revisionist is permitted to take all plea with regard to the cause of action and the valuation of suit, and on such plea trial court is directed to frame preliminary issues. 6. In such view of the matter, the instant civil revision is disposed of finally with the direction to the trial court to proceed with the trial and plaintiff/revisionist is permitted to take all plea with regard to the cause of action and the valuation of suit, and on such plea trial court is directed to frame preliminary issues. In addition to this, if the defendant wants to take any other plea with regard to preliminary issue he can take it and after framing the preliminary issues, in addition to the other issues, the trial court first dealt with the preliminary issues only then proceed further. Apart from this, the trial court also makes all possible efforts to expedite the trial positively within six months.