Full Judgment;
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2202 OF 2022
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 02.03.2026
Smt. Byreddy Rama Devi, ... Petitioner / Defendant
Smt. Vemavarama Sree Vijaya, ... Respondent / Plaintiff
BENCH
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH N.
ORDER
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order passed in I.A. No. 651 of 2021 in O.S. No. 670 of 2021. It is submitted that I.A. No. 651 of 2021 was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. It is admitted that the petitioner is arrayed as a defendant in O.S. No. 670 of 2021 filed for the relief of declaration as owner of the plaint schedule property and a consequential injunction restraining the defendant therein, her agents, men, associates, and other persons claiming through her from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has acquired property vide a registered sale deed executed by the husband of the respondent herein in the year 2007. The petitioner has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession ever since 08.01.2007, the date on which the husband of the respondent executed the sale deed.
2. It is also submitted that the respondent has filed the suit by relying on an unregistered gift deed dated 27.04.2021, which, according to the respondent, was executed by her husband after a lapse of 15 years of transferring the right, title, and interest over the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner in the year 2007. It is submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable as the plaintiff is trying to seek the relief of a declaration by relying on an unregistered gift deed. It is submitted that the unregistered gift deed cannot have any evidentiary value, and as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the gift deed is a document that has to be essentially registered.
3. It is also submitted that the petitioner, having received the suit summons, has filed a written statement and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking the relief of rejection of the plaint. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not sought the cancellation of the registered document in favour of the petitioner. However, she has sought the relief of a declaration as owner of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the plaint averments would categorically indicate that the respondent was aware of the execution of the registered sale deed on 08.01.2007 by her husband and that the plaintiff ought to have sought cancellation of the said document.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment in the matter of Ramisetty Venkatanna and another vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others (2023 LawSuit(SC) 452), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It was also held that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. If the suit is manifestly vexatious, the same can be rejected.
5. The learned counsel further relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghwendar Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh ((2020) 16 SCC 601), wherein it was held that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent Article 59 of the Limitation Act by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances by which the suit stood barred by limitation.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and it is not the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff has not pleaded a cause of action. Reliance is placed on the matter of ELDECO Housing and Industries Limited vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and others ((2024) 11 SCC 503), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court would have to consider only the averments in the plaint. Limitation is a mixed question of fact, and a trial would have to be conducted to determine the suit on merits.
7. Reliance is also placed on the matter of P. Kumarakurubaran vs. P. Narayanan and others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 975), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and restored the suit to file, holding that limitation is a question of fact and law requiring full trial.
8. It is submitted by the respondent that the relief sought for in the suit is for a declaration as owner of the property, which would also render the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner a nullity once declared by the Court. The plaint schedule property as per the suit is a tiled house; however, the scheduled property in the registered document of the year 2007 is vacant land.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it clear that transfer of title by way of gift must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. In the present case, the unregistered gift deed dated 27.04.2021 cannot be relied upon for any purpose.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the record.
11. The short point for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Judge in dismissing I.A. No. 651 of 2021 in O.S. No. 670 of 2021 deserves to be upheld.
12. The averments of the plaint would disclose that the plaintiff is placing reliance on an unregistered gift deed dated 27.04.2021, which is allegedly executed by the husband of the respondent after a lapse of 15 years of transferring the title over the said property in favour of the petitioner. To maintain the suit, there must be a valid legal cause of action. The primary document on which the plaintiff tries to maintain the suit is an unregistered gift deed. In a suit for declaration, documents are the foundation of the litigation. On the facts of this case, the suit is filed by placing reliance on an unregistered gift deed, which is a nullity in law under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act.
13. For considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit by placing reliance on an unregistered gift deed dated 27.04.2021. That apart, the averments of the plaint refer to the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by the husband of the plaintiff on 08.01.2007. There is no explanation as to what prompted the plaintiff to remain silent and not seek the relief of cancellation of the registered document in favour of the defendant.
14. The pleadings and a wholesome reading of the plaint make it amply clear that the suit is manifestly vexatious and the plaintiff intends to use the suit as a tool for harassment. The suit fails on the principle of locus standi and the requirement of prima facie evidence. If this Court is to accept the contention of the respondent that the validity or otherwise of the unregistered gift deed should be left open for the trial Court—with the possibility of the trial Court impounding the document for deficit stamp duty—it would lead to opening floodgates of litigation.
15. There would not be any end to litigation if Courts consider maintaining suits based on documents that have no evidentiary value. On the facts of this case, the primary document is an unregistered gift deed, which cannot be considered as a legal, valid, and reliable document for the purpose of deciding the suit on merits.
16. As to the contention of the respondent that the matter should be relegated to trial, Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act mandates that a gift of immovable property must be effected by a registered instrument and attested by at least two witnesses. This makes it amply clear that the validity of the said document is void ab-initio, and the said document is not admissible as evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. In these circumstances, a cause of action cannot arise on the basis of a void document.
17. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 25.07.2022 passed in I.A. No. 651 of 2021 in O.S. No. 670 of 2021 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, deserves to be set aside, and the plaint filed in O.S. No. 670 of 2021 is hereby rejected.
18. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is ALLOWED. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE HARINATH N.