ORDER
Subhash Samvatsar, J.
1. This revision is filed by the defendant challenging order dated 7-2-2005 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 6-A/2005.
2. By the impugned order the Court below has rejected an application filed by the present petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 with Section 9, CPC (LA. No. 6).
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of agriculture land bearing Survey No. 311 situated at Sherpura, Vidisha it is alleged that the said land was owned by one Akhter Alam. The plaintiff has entered into an agreement to purchase the said property on 21-3-1967 and is in possession of the suit property. He has paid the entire consideration of Rs. 3,000/- at the time of agreement. He filed the present suit alleging that he may be declared the title holder of the property and his name be mutated in the revenue record against the said property.
4. After the notice the defendant petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC which is rejected by the impugned order. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. According to him the Trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in rejecting his application.
5. The contention of learned Counsel for petitioner is that the respondent plaintiff is claiming title to the suit property on the basis of an agreement to sale. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act an agreement to sale docs not confer any title to a person in whose favour the agreement is executed as per Section 54 an agreement to sale merely creates right in the suit property and not a right to a suit property. Hence, plaintiff can not be declared owner of the property on the basis of the said agreement.
6. Moreover, Section 53A of the T.P. Act merely gives protection to a person in possession of the property in pursuance of an agreement but no one can file a suit on the basis of such agreement for protection of his interest there is no doubt about this proposition. However, for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 following conditions should be in existence:
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) Where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9.
so long as any of this condition does not exist the plaint can not be returned. The Apex Court in case Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 557 has laid down that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC the Court must decide the application on the basis of the plaint allegation only. In such circumstances this Court has to examine whether the plaint can be rejected in the present case on the basis of plaint allegation. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case is covered under Clause D of Order VII Rule 11 that means his suit is barred by any law.
7. The plaintiff in the present case has filed a suit for declaration and injunction at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11. This Court can not examine whether a plaintiff shall ultimately succeed or not. The only question which is to be decided is whether the suit is barred by any law or not ? Neither Section 53A nor Section 54, T.P. Act creates any bar for filing the suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act Section 34 prohibits a suit for mere declaration without consequential relief. But in the present case relief of injunction is also prayed by the plaintiff. The Apex Court in case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner, , has laid down that whether one of the relief claimed by the plaintiff is not barred by any law then also an application under Order VII Rule 11 is not maintainable and as plaint can not be partly rejected.
8. In such situation, I find that the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application further more the Trial Court has kept the issue about tenability of the suit open for decision after filing of the written statement thus there is no error in the impugned order to call for interference in exercise of powers under Section 115, CPC.
9. In result, this revision fails and is dismissed.