A bare payment claim, without pleaded possession or sale agreement, cannot sustain a permanent injunction suit.

The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S. No. 25511/2023, alleging that he had paid ₹1,00,000 to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in 2012 and had thereafter been put in possession of the suit property.

He alleged that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently sold the property to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and that all the defendants were interfering with his possession.

Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, contending that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and that the suit was barred by law.

The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint by order dated 17 July 2025.

The plaintiff challenged that order in the present Regular First Appeal.

Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for instituting a suit for permanent injunction?

Whether defendant Nos. 3 and 4 established that the plaint disclosed no cause of action?

Whether the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable because the plaintiff had other efficacious remedies under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

Whether the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint required interference in appeal?

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a plaint may be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action or where the suit appears from the plaint to be barred by law.

It also applied Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides that an injunction cannot be granted where an equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained through another usual mode of proceeding, except in cases of breach of trust.

The Court proceeded on the principle that the plaint must contain material facts establishing the plaintiff’s asserted right, possession, and cause of action; where the pleaded facts are illusory or do not constitute a legally enforceable basis for injunction, the plaint is liable to rejection.

The Court found that the plaint merely stated that the plaintiff had paid ₹1,00,000 to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in 2012; it did not plead the existence of any agreement of sale or explain how the plaintiff had acquired possession of the suit property.

Consequently, the pleadings did not establish that the plaintiff was in lawful possession or disclose a substantive basis for seeking protection by permanent injunction.

Even assuming that the payment represented token advance under an oral agreement of sale, the plaintiff’s appropriate remedies would have been recovery of money or specific performance, both of which were considered efficacious alternatives under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.

On an examination of the plaint averments alone, the Court held that the alleged cause of action was illusory and imaginary and did not constitute a cause of action for permanent injunction.

The trial court’s order under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC was therefore found legally justified.

The Regular First Appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the order dated 17 July 2025 rejecting the plaint was upheld.