Order VI Rule 4 CPC | Clever Drafting Creating Illusion of Cause of Action Impermissible: Supreme Court Rejects Vague Plea Against Registered Sale Deed

“Pleadings Must Contain Specific, Clear, and Material Particulars – Mere Allegations Cannot Dislodge Validity of Registered Documents” – In a critical reaffirmation of procedural discipline in civil litigation, the Supreme Court of India on 22nd January 2026, in Hemalatha (Dead) by LRs v. Tukaram (Dead) by LRs & Ors., delivered a judgment that underscores the rigorous pleading standards required when challenging a registered sale deed as sham or nominal. The Court decisively held that vague and self-contradictory pleadings cannot form the basis for invalidating a registered sale deed, especially when the document is unambiguous and executed with due formality.

A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and J ustice Manmohan overturned the Karnataka High Court’s decision, restoring the First Appellate Court’s judgment which had dismissed the Respondent's suit seeking to declare the registered Sale Deed and Rental Agreement dated 12.11.1971 as sham.

“Courts Must Guard Against Clever Drafting That Creates Illusion of Cause of Action”

Applying the legal standard under Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court held that the Respondent-Plaintiff’s plaint failed to contain material particulars necessary to make out a cause of action.

“The person alleging that a registered deed is a sham must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading by making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material particulars. The test akin to Order VI Rule 4 CPC is applicable.” [Para 34]

The Court strongly condemned the practice of constructing illusory suits based on generic allegations, warning that such tactics undermine the very foundations of property law and litigation.

“Clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action would not be permitted, and a clear right to sue would have to be shown in the plaint.” [Para 34]

Deficiency in Pleadings: No Material Particulars, No Relief Sought Against Key Parties

The Bench found that the suit failed to disclose a credible basis for the challenge. Despite alleging that the sale deed was a security for loan and that other defendants conspired with the purchaser, no relief was claimed against those very defendants, nor were any details about the alleged conspiracy or debts provided.

“Despite averring that the sale deed was executed in collusion with Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, no relief was sought against them and no material particulars of the alleged debts were pleaded. On the contrary, Defendant No.3 was examined as the Plaintiff’s own witness.” [Para 39]

The Court also highlighted internal contradictions in the plaint — including an inconsistent claim that the property was to be reconveyed after loan repayment, which was at odds with the plea of mortgage.

“The averment that upon repayment of ₹10,000, the defendants were to reconvey the property is contradictory and self-defeating, since such an arrangement, if at all, would imply a conditional sale — yet no such condition is in the deed.” [Para 40]

"Pleadings Should Not Be Allowed To Override Clear Terms Of Registered Document"

The Court reiterated that under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, oral evidence cannot be introduced to contradict or vary the terms of a written, registered document. The only exception—where the transaction was never intended to be acted upon—still requires precise and specific pleadings, which were absent in the present case.

“This Court may mention that in none of the judgments cited by the Respondent-Plaintiff has it been held that the strong presumption of validity of a registered document and/or the test of Order VI Rule 4 CPC are inapplicable.” [Para 37]

“Even if the suit is allowed to proceed to trial, like in the present case, the level of proof required to be produced by the Plaintiff would have to be extremely strong.” [Para 36]

Reply to Legal Notice Ignored in Pleadings – Contradicts Sham Sale Claim

Further weakening the plaintiff’s case, the Bench noted that the 1974 reply to the legal notice, in which the plaintiff admitted default in rent and promised to pay arrears, was never explained or disavowed in the plaint. This was considered fatal to the credibility of the claim.

“There is no averment that reply to the legal notice had been issued without understanding its contents. Consequently, the present plaint was liable to be rejected at the initial stage.” [Para 41]

Registered Documents Demand Respect – Judicial Time Cannot Be Wasted on Vague Claims

This judgment sends a strong message that courts will not entertain loosely pleaded, speculative suits against solemn, registered documents executed decades earlier. The Court cautioned against the growing trend of frivolous suits based on vague narratives and emotional appeals that are designed to delay or defeat legitimate property rights.

“Frivolous litigation aimed at defeating valid title by invoking clever drafting cannot be allowed to succeed. Registered documents must inspire confidence and certainty.” [Para 33]

Reinforcing the twin principles of procedural discipline in pleadings and substantive respect for registered documents, the Supreme Court’s verdict stands as a critical precedent. It reminds litigants and lawyers alike that conclusory allegations, without material particulars, cannot dislodge solemn acts like registration.

The judgment affirms that the Sale Deed dated 12.11.1971 and the Rental Agreement were genuine, valid, and acted upon, and the suit to declare them sham was rightly dismissed.

Date of Decision: 22 January 2026