LexTHE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION versus B. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 94 : 2025 INSC 490 The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Another (Civil Appeal No. 5200 of 2025) 16 April 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court and the trial court rejecting the application filed by the appellant u/Ord.VII r.11(a) and (d) CPC for the rejection of plaint. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.VII r.11 – Rejection of plaint – Appellant Institute in possession of suit property since 1905 – Respondents filed suit seeking permanent injunction restraining appellant from creating any third-party interest over the property based on an alleged agreement to sell executed by respondents with a third party – Respondents paid Rs.75,00,000/- in cash as advance – Appellant filed application u/Ord.VII r.11 seeking rejection of plaint – Both the trial court and the High Court rejected the same – Correctness: Held: Agreement for sale does not confer any right to the purchaser to file a suit against a third party who is either the owner or in possession, or who claims to be the owner and to be in possession – Respondents’ claim suffered from multiple fatal defects – No privity between the respondents and the appellant – Suit at the instance of the respondents not maintainable and only the vendors could have approached the court for a relief of declaration – Respondents had no legal right that could be enforced against the appellant as their claim impliedly barred by virtue of s.54 of TPA – Respondents not in possession and the appellant in settled possession for over a century, suit for bare injunction by proposed transferee not maintainable – Respondents, being mere agreement holders, had no personal interest in the suit schedule property that could be enforced against third parties – No declaratory relief was sought – Respondents sought only relief of permanent injunction restraining * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 95 The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Another the appellant from alienating the property, without a declaration affirming the title of their vendors – Without possession and without seeking a declaration of title, not only the suit is barred but the cause of action also fictitious – High Court without noticing the said defects in the plaint, dismissed the application filed by the appellant – When the defects go to the root of the case, barred by law with fictitious allegations and are incurable, no amount of evidence can salvage plaintiffs’ case – Furthermore, public interest implications of the instant case are significant consideration – Such institutions must be protected from speculative litigation that can drain their resources and impede their charitable work – Allowing suits like the instant one to proceed to trial, would waste judicial time and resources, and encourage similar speculative and extortionate litigations – Respondents having paid Rs.75,00,000/- by cash, despite the introduction of s.269ST IT Act and the amendment to s.271 DA, not only creates suspicion on the transaction, but also displays violation of law – Ignorance in fact is excusable but not the ignorance in law – Thus, the plaint ought to have been rejected u/Ord. VII r.11(a) and (d) – Orders passed by the High Court as well as trial court rejecting the application filed by the appellant, cannot be sustained in law and is set aside – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52, 53-A, 54. [Paras 15.1-20] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.VII r.11 – Rejection of plaint – Scope: Held: Ord. VII r.11 serves as a crucial filter in civil litigation, enabling courts to terminate proceedings at the threshold where the plaintiff’s case, even if accepted in its entirety, fails to disclose any cause of action or is barred by law, either express or by implication – There is a bounden duty on the Court to discern and identify fictitious suit, which on the face of it would be barred, but for the clever pleadings disclosing a cause of action, that is surreal – Generally, sub-clauses (a) and (d) are stand alone grounds, that can be raised by the defendant in a suit – However, it cannot be ruled out that under certain circumstances, clauses (a) and (d) can be mutually inclusive – When clever drafting veils the implied bar to disclose the cause of action; it then becomes the duty of the Court to l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.