In a revision petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court to challenge an order dated 29-09-2025 by the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the petitioner (defendant 2) was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rekha Borana affirmed the sale deed executed prior to written revocation of Power of Attorney, quashed the impugned order, and rejected the subject plaint by the plaintiff.
A suit for cancellation of a sale deed and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff (present respondent 1), contending that he was the recorded khatedar of an agricultural land. Since the land had to be developed, the petitioner and another person entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in 2012 to undertake the proceedings. Accordingly, the plaintiff signed certain stamp papers as well as blank papers and handed them over.
As per the agreement, the complete expenses for the development were to be borne by the petitioner as well as the other person, and in lieu of this, 13 bighas out of 27 bighas were to be transferred to them by the plaintiff after receiving due consideration. It was contended that no development proceedings were undertaken till 2021, and hence, a dispute arose between the parties. When no proceedings had started till January 2022, the plaintiff demanded the return of his original documents, but was threatened by the fact that the petitioner had the sale agreement, a development agreement, and two Powers of Attorney in their favour. Hence, the plaintiff revoked the alleged Power of Attorney and the development agreement, but the petitioner and the other person did not return the original documents.
On being served with a registered notice revoking the Power of Attorney, the petitioner and the other person stated that, by virtue of the Power of Attorney, the petitioner had already executed a sale deed on 31-10-2023. It was asserted that the sale deed was a sham document executed solely to defraud the plaintiff, and the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Trial Court rejected the application and observed that the suit was for cancellation of the sale deed and that no issue regarding khatedari rights had been raised, which is why the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The petitioner asserted that the Trial Court erred in recording that the sale deed was executed on 03-11-2023, since the execution took place on 31-10-2023 and was even presented before the Registrar, being evidently prior to the revocation of the Power of Attorney notice dated 02-11-2023.
The Court perused the plaint and stated that no cause of action could have been said to have accrued to the plaintiff. Reference was made to Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366, and it was said that it is the court’s duty to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. Regarding the oral revocation of the Power of Attorney, the Court opined that, even if accepted, it would be of no consequence. It was held that a contract or disposition, reduced to writing, cannot be modified or altered by an oral contract or disposition.
The Court referred to Amar Nath v. Gian Chand, 2022 (11) SCC 460, and stated that if any right is transferred by a written document, its revocation must be in writing. It was said that once the plaintiff executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to execute a sale deed by virtue of the same.
Further, regarding whether the sale deed was executed by the petitioner prior to the written revocation, the Court noted that the Power of Attorney was revoked by written notice on 02-11-2023, and that the sale deed was executed on 31-10-2023. It was held that the Trial Court’s observation that the sale deed was executed on 03-11-2023 was erroneous, and that it was only registered on the said date. Hence, the Court held that the sale deed was perfectly valid as the Power of Attorney remained in existence at the time.
The court stated that the present matter was a clear case of clever drafting, whereby the plaintiff sought to create an illusory cause of action, and that it deserved to be nipped in the bud. Referring to various cases, the Court opined that the plaint in question deserved to be rejected and that the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC deserved to be allowed.
Regarding the plaintiff’s contention for non-receipt of consideration, the Court said that even though this could entitle the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of the consideration amount, it could not entitle the plaintiff to claim the cancellation of the sale deed. Thus, the Court allowed the present petition and quashed the impugned order while rejecting the plaintiff’s plaint.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Mr. Akshay Kumar Surana, Mr. Tarun Dudia
For Respondents – Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Mr. Piyush Joshi
