Pre-permission possession of protected land bars specific performance under Order VII Rule 11(d).

Opposite Party No. 1 instituted C.S. No. 16 of 2020 seeking specific performance of an unregistered agreement for sale dated 02.04.2013 concerning one acre of land, allegedly executed by Avilash Mahananda as the General Power of Attorney holder of Late Ashima Mahananda.

The agreement recorded payment of ₹8,00,000 out of the total consideration of ₹11,00,000 and delivery of vacant possession, with the balance payable upon execution of the sale deed.

It also contemplated obtaining permission under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (“OLR Act”) before execution of the sale deed.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants ultimately refused to obtain permission on 22.10.2019, leading to institution of the suit on 04.02.2020.

During the pendency of the suit, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC, contending that the suit was barred by Section 22 of the OLR Act and by limitation.

The Civil Judge rejected the application, holding that the plaintiff had disclosed a cause of action and that the validity of the agreement and statutory bar required evidence.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 115 CPC.

1. Whether, on a meaningful reading of the plaint and the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff, the suit for specific performance was barred under Section 22 of the OLR Act because possession of protected land had been delivered before obtaining the previous statutory permission.

2. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC where the alleged statutory bar arose from the plaintiff’s own pleadings and the agreement forming the foundation of the suit.

3. Whether the objections concerning Section 67 of the OLR Act, cessation of the General Power of Attorney, succession, and limitation required determination at the threshold.

Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, a plaint must be rejected where the suit appears from the statements contained in the plaint to be barred by law; the court ordinarily examines the plaint as a whole and cannot rely on the defendants’ defence.

Section 22(1), read with Section 22(5), of the OLR Act renders a transfer of the holding of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe raiyat void in the absence of the prescribed previous written permission of the Revenue Officer; Section 22(4) additionally prohibits registration of a document purporting to effect such transfer without that permission.

Section 3 of the OLR Act gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws, agreements, decrees or orders.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that an agreement for sale does not, by itself, create an interest in or charge upon immovable property, but the statutory restriction under Section 22 of the OLR Act applies to the transaction as disclosed, including delivery of possession.

A statutory bar apparent from the plaintiff’s own case may be decided under Order VII Rule 11(d) without recording evidence.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s own pleadings and the agreement disclosed all material facts relevant to Section 22: the land was protected property, permission was necessary, substantial consideration had been paid, and vacant possession had already been delivered before permission was obtained.

Although the agreement did not itself transfer ownership under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court construed the expression “any transfer” in Section 22 broadly and held that the statutory restriction was not confined only to the later execution and registration of the sale deed.

The plaintiff’s proposal that the defendants could subsequently be directed to obtain permission did not cure the defect, since the transaction had already been acted upon by delivery of possession without the required previous permission, and the Civil Court could not assume that permission would necessarily be granted.

Because the statutory bar emerged from the plaintiff’s own case and did not require adjudication of disputed defence evidence, the Trial Court materially erred in treating the issue as one requiring trial.

The Court found it unnecessary to decide the additional objections relating to Section 67, the Power of Attorney, succession, or limitation.

The plaint was therefore liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed; the order dated 19.05.2026 was set aside; the defendants’ Order VII Rule 11 application was allowed; and the plaint in C.S. No. 16 of 2020 was rejected.

Any interim order previously passed was vacated.