AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vivek Jain, J
The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the trial Court whereby the trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint.
A suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been filed before the trial Court on the assertion that the plaintiff be declared owner of the suit land and a consequential permanent injunction be granted. A further relief is sought that an agreement to sale dated 24.3.2025 wherein the plaintiff is not party, be declared null and void as against the rights of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has purchased the land in respect to which there was an agreement to sale with the defendant by the original vendor. Plaintiff has sued for declaration on the basis of his sale deed and to declare that the agreement to sale executed by the earlier owner in favor of the present petitioner null and void as against the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not sued to challenge or avoid any registered title document, but he is only seeking to avoid an agreement to sale. The case of the petitioner-defendant before this Court is that the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit as per the valuation mentioned in the sale deed and in fact, as per the market value of the land.
So far as the aforesaid question is concerned, the plaintiff only seeks to avoid an agreement to sale in which he is even not a party and the said agreement to sale even does not confer any title upon the beneficiary thereof. The plaintiff is only suing for declaration of title and he is not bound to value the plaint as per the valuation mentioned in the agreement to sale or as per market value of the property for simple declaration.
At this stage, counsel for the respondent has argued that the suit is barred by law because no notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the State Government and therefore, the suit is barred by law.
In the present suit, the State is only a formal party and if the petitioner contends that non-compliance of service of notice under section 80 CPC is fatal, then without commenting on the affect of non-compliance of section 80 CPC for the purpose of present petition, this much would suffice that objection in that regard is to be taken by the State Government and cannot be taken by the private litigant whose rights are not going to be affected by non-service of such notice.
Therefore, finding no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the revision fails and is dismissed.