Dismissed¶22

Mahesh Bansal v. Jagdish Garg and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025FAPL/644/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. rejection of plaint; Section 96 C.P.C. first appeal; unregistered and unstamped agreement to sell dated 22.09.2024; no sanctity in the eye of law; no cause of action; ad valorem court fee; Court Fee Act; cancellation of registered agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024; declaration and permanent injunction; competing agreements to sell; Civil Judge (Senior Division) Meerut; Original Suit No.175 of 2025; Mahesh Bansal vs. Jagdish Garg; Allahabad High Court.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed, impugned judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 affirmed, parties to bear their respective costs. ¶22

Mahesh Bansal Vs Jagdish Garg and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; appeal dismissed, impugned judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 affirmed, parties to bear their respective costs.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of the unregistered agreement to sell dated 22.09.2024 were capable of being granted, and whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The document dated 22.09.2024, alleged to be an agreement to sell executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff, being neither duly stamped nor registered, has got no sanctity in the eye of law and no relief whatsoever can be granted to the plaintiff on its basis.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

On the basis of the unregistered agreement to sell, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit, and the reliefs claimed thereon cannot be granted by any Court.

¶18

Key takeaways

The trial court committed no illegality in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., including its conclusion that the plaintiff ought to have paid ad valorem court fee under the Court Fee Act for the relief of cancellation of the registered agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024, which he had not paid.ratio¶10
The appeal having no merit was dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 was affirmed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sandeep Jain, J.), FAPL No. 644 of 2025, decided September 9, 2025: First appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. by the plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut in Original Suit No.175 of 2025, whereby the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The suit was founded on an alleged agreement to sell dated 22.09.2024 executed by defendant no.1, on which the plaintiff sought declaration that the subsequent registered agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024 in favour of defendant no.2 was null and void, together with permanent injunction against execution of a sale deed and alienation. Held: the document dated 22.09.2024 being neither duly stamped nor registered has got no sanctity in the eye of law; no relief can be granted on its basis; the plaintiff has no cause of action; further, the plaintiff failed to pay ad valorem court fee under the Court Fee Act for the relief of cancellation of the registered agreement. The trial court committed no illegality in rejecting the plaint. Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment and decree affirmed; parties to bear their respective costs.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL No. - 644 of 2025

Mahesh Bansal

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

Jagdish Garg And Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ajay Kumar Srivastava :

¶6

Court No. - 35

¶7

HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the caveator- respondents.

¶9

2. Appeal is admitted.

¶10

The instant appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff against impugned judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Meerut in Original Suit No.175 of 2025 (Mahesh Bansal vs. Jagdish and another), whereby defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been allowed and consequently, the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed.

¶11

It appears that the plaintiff has filed a suit in lower court that an agreement to sell regarding the disputed land had been executed in his favour on 22.09.2024 by defendant no.1 Jagdish Garg but, subsequently defendant no.1 had executed another registered agreement to sell on 10.12.2024 in favour of the defendant no.2. The plaintiff has claimed that since the earlier agreement to sell dated 22.09.2024 was in his favour, as such, the subsequent registered agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024 be declared ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the subsequent registered agreement to sell, is a fraudulent document which is void ab-initio .

¶12

The plaintiff claimed the relief of declaration that the subsequent agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024 be declared null and void, not binding on the plaintiff. Beside this, the plaintiff also sought the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant no.1 from executing sale deed in favour of the defendant no.2, on the basis of subsequent agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024. Further, it was claimed that the defendants be restrained from alienating the property to any person.

¶13

On the perusal of the document dated 22.09.2024, which is alleged to be an agreement to sell, executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the

¶14

FAPL No. 644 of 2025

¶15

¶16

plaintiff, it appears that it is neither duly stamped nor registered. In view of the above, the document has got no sanctity in the eye of law and on that basis, no relief whatsoever can be granted to the plaintiff, by the Court.

¶17

Learned counsel for the caveator- respondent no.1 also accepted that the above document is waste paper, which confers no right on the plaintiff.

¶18

It is apparent that the reliefs, claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell cannot be granted by any Court. On the basis of that document, the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the instant suit.

¶19

It is also apparent that the trial court has also concluded that since the plaintiff is claiming cancellation of the registered agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024, as such, the plaintiff ought to have paid ad valorem Court fee under the provisions of Court Fee Act, which he has not paid.

¶20