The Court reiterated that rejection of plaint must be based solely on the plaint's averments:If even one triable issue or cause of action is raised, the plaint cannot be dismissed at threshold:Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vs Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.

Case: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vs Mahaveer Lunia & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 772 | Date: 23 May 2025
Coram: Justices J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan

Supreme Court Restores Civil Suit in Land Dispute: Rejection of Plaint Set Aside

---

Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has allowed the appeal of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's order that had summarily rejected its plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The apex court reinstated the suit for declaration and possession over a land transaction clouded by alleged misuse of power of attorney and fraudulent sale deeds.

---

Background:

• Appellant: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd.

• Respondents: Mahaveer Lunia & Others (private respondents)

• Property in question: 18 bighas 15 biswas of agricultural land in Village Pal, Jodhpur.

In 2014, the appellant borrowed ₹7.5 crores from Respondent No. 1 and executed an unregistered agreement to sell and power of attorney in his favour. These were later revoked in May 2022. However, the respondents executed sale deeds in July 2022, which were registered and mutated in the revenue records.

The appellant filed a civil suit seeking:

• Declaration that the sale deeds were void.

• Possession of the property.

• Injunction against further alienation or construction.

---

Procedural History:

• Trial Court: Refused to reject the plaint; found triable issues.

• High Court (Rajasthan): Allowed revision and rejected the plaint entirely.

• Supreme Court: Reversed the High Court's decision.

---

Key Legal Issues Discussed:

1. Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC:

   • The Court reiterated that rejection of plaint must be based solely on the plaint's averments.

   • If even one triable issue or cause of action is raised, the plaint cannot be dismissed at threshold.

2. Validity of Unregistered Documents:

   • The 2014 agreement to sell and power of attorney were unregistered and revoked before the sale deeds.

   • As per Section 17 & 49 of the Registration Act, and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, such documents do not confer ownership or title.

3. Title Claims and Jurisdiction:

   • Disputes relating to title are within exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts, not revenue authorities.

   • Mutation entries based on disputed sale deeds do not determine title.

4. Multiple Causes of Action:

   • The suit was not entirely based on the 2014 agreement; it included fresh cause of action from sale deeds of July 2022.

   • Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by treating the second cause as “academic.”

5. Court Fee Deficiency:

   • Court noted that plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to rectify deficient court fees under Section 6 of the Court Fees Act.

---

Final Judgment:

• Appeal Allowed.

• High Court's order rejecting the plaint set aside.

• Trial Court’s order restored.

• Suit directed to proceed on merits.

---

Conclusion:

The judgment reaffirms that courts must not summarily dismiss suits that raise bona fide disputes about title, especially in matters involving revocation of power of attorney and questionable property transfers. It protects litigants from procedural misuse and reinforces the role of civil courts in determining property rights.