Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Suit Based On Unregistered Gift Deed Not Maintainable; Plaint Liable For Rejection: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"There would not be any end to any litigation if the Courts consider maintaining the suits on documents that have no evidentiary value," High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant ruling, held that a suit for declaration of ownership cannot be maintained when the primary document of title is an unregistered gift deed.

A bench of Justice Harinath N. observed that such a document is void ab initio under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and cannot form the basis of a valid cause of action. The Court emphasized that allowing such suits to proceed would open the floodgates for vexatious litigation.

The petitioner (defendant) challenged an order of the Trial Court which had refused to reject a plaint filed by the respondent (plaintiff). The respondent had sought a declaration of ownership over a property based on an unregistered gift deed dated April 27, 2021, allegedly executed by her husband. Notably, the husband had already sold the same property to the petitioner via a registered sale deed in 2007, and the petitioner had been in possession for fifteen years.

The primary question before the court was whether a suit for declaration can be maintained solely on the basis of an unregistered gift deed. The court also examined whether the failure to seek cancellation of a prior registered sale deed, while being aware of its existence, rendered the suit manifestly vexatious and liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND JUDGMENT

Unregistered Gift Deed Is Void Ab Initio Under Transfer Of Property Act

The Court noted that Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act mandates that a gift of immovable property must be effected by a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. The bench observed that the unregistered gift deed dated April 27, 2021, could not be relied upon for any legal purpose.

The bench held that in a suit for declaration, documents are the foundation of the litigation. Since the primary document here was a nullity in law, the plaintiff had no standing to maintain the suit. The Court clarified that a document that is void from its inception cannot provide the necessary cause of action required to keep a suit alive.

"The primary document on which the plaintiff tries to maintain the suit is an unregistered gift deed, which is a nullity in law under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act."

Inadmissibility Under Section 49 Of The Registration Act

Justice Harinath N. further highlighted that under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, a gift deed of immovable property is a document that must essentially be registered. Failure to do so attracts the bar under Section 49 of the same Act, rendering the document inadmissible as evidence for proving title.

The Court rejected the respondent's contention that the document could be impounded later for stamp duty and then considered on merits. The bench observed that courts should not permit suits to be maintained on documents that possess no evidentiary value at the threshold, as this would lead to an endless cycle of frivolous litigation.

"This makes it amply clear that the validity of the said document is void ab initio, and the said document is not admissible as evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908."

Clever Drafting Cannot Circumvent Limitation Or Lack Of Cause Of Action

The Court observed that the plaintiff was aware of the 2007 registered sale deed but failed to seek its cancellation. By merely seeking a declaration of ownership, the plaintiff attempted to bypass the requirements of Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The bench relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Raghwendar Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh to hold that clever drafting cannot be used to hide a barred suit.

The bench found the suit to be "manifestly vexatious" and an "abuse of the process of law." It held that when a suit fails on the principle of locus standi and lacks prima facie evidence, the court must exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to scuttle the litigation at the threshold.

"The pleadings and wholesome reading of the plaint makes it amply clear that the suit is manifestly vexatious and the plaintiff intends to use the suit as a tool for harassment."

Final Directions

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court had erred in dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court allowed the revision petition and officially rejected the plaint in O.S. No. 670 of 2021. The Court held that since the document forming the foundation of the suit was void, no trial was necessary.

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the Trial Court's order, effectively rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The ruling reaffirms that mandatory registration of gift deeds is a prerequisite for maintaining a title suit and that courts must proactively dismiss vexatious claims based on void documents.

Date of Decision: 02 March 2026