Raghubar Singh vs Ganga Prasad and Others

Deepak Gupta, J

The appellant, who was the plainff before the trial Court, instuted a suit for declaraon and permanent injun con in respect of the suit property. The trial Court, vide order dated 12.01.2023, rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and that decision was affirmed by the first Appellate Court on 03.07.2025.

The suit was premised on the agreement to sell dated 03.08.2018, whereby defendants allegedly agreed to sell 8 Kanal 18 Marla land for a consideraon of ₹3,66,52,000/-, receivin g ₹20,00,000/- as earnest money. By extension agreement dated 15.03.2019, the date for execuon of sale deed was extended to 14.06.2019. T he plainff claims to have further paid ₹30,00,000/- on 21.01.2019. Upon demarcaon, the land with defendants was allegedly found to be only 7 Kanal 5 Marla, the rest being under encroachment. Alleging readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideraon subject to proper measurement, the plainff sought a declaraon of tle, and injuncon against aliena on or interference.

The defendants, however, applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, as the plainff had omied to seek the substanve relief of which had already accrued to him by the date of suit. specific performance, which had already accrued to him by the date of suit.

The trial Court accepted the objecon and rejecte d the plaint, which was upheld in appeal.

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  contends  that  besides seeking declaraon of his right, tle, and interest in the property on the strength of an agreement to sell dated 03.08.2018 and an extension agreement dated 15.03.2019, plainff - appellant had also prayed for permanent injuncon restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession and from demolishing the construcon ove r the property. It is argued that even if the relief of declaraon was no t maintainable, the injuncon claim was independent and survived, and t herefore, rejecon of the plaint in toto was erroneous. Reliance has been placed upon Sri

Biswanath Banik and anr. v. Smt. Sulanga Bose and ors. 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 1519; and Sri Boyenepally Srijayavardhan v. V. Nirupama Reddy, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777046.

There is no merit in the contenon. It is not in dispute that the cause of acon for specific performance arose on 14. 06.2019. Despite claiming readiness and willingness, the plainff cho se not to sue for specific performance even with respect to the 7 Kanal 5 Marla admiedly available with defendants. The law is well seled that an agr eement to sell does not by itself create any right, tle, or interest in th e proposed vendee. Without seeking specific performance, the vendee cannot claim a declaraon of ownership, or an injuncon to restrain the true own er from dealing with the property.

The further plea that the plainff was in possessi on and entled to protecon under Secon 53-A of the Trans fer of Property Act also does not advance the case. A perusal of the agreement dated 03.08.2018, which forms the foundaon of the suit, shows no spulaon regarding delivery of possession. Counsel for the appellant candidly conceded the absence of such a clause. Since the agreement is integral to the plaint itself, the Courts can consider its terms while examining maintainability. In the absence of delivery of possession under the agreement, reliance on Secon 53-A TPA is misconcei ved.

Even assuming that possession had been delivered, omission to seek specific performance renders the suit hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC. This view finds support from the decision of this Court in Subhash Chander v. Dayanand & Ors., RSA-2223-2015, decided on 29.07.2015.

In light of the above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecng the plaint. The appeal is held to be devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed.

All pending miscellaneous applicaons also stand disposed of.