Non-Filing Of FIR Cannot Be A Ground To Reject A Plaint Alleging Coercion In Execution Of Sale Deed: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that the absence of an FIR cannot be a ground to reject a plaint alleging coercion and misrepresentation in the execution of a sale deed, observing that questions relating to free consent must be determined on evidence and cannot be decided at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a plaint seeking cancellation of a sale deed cannot be rejected merely because the plaintiff did not lodge an FIR regarding alleged threats or coercion.
The Court observed that such allegations directly concern the issue of free consent and require adjudication on evidence at trial.
The High Court was hearing an appeal challenging the rejection of a civil suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, in which the plaintiff sought cancellation of a registered sale deed on the ground that it had been executed under coercion, misrepresentation, and threats concerning his minor children.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, upon hearing the matter, held: “Failure to lodge a First Information Report („FIR‟) or file a criminal complaint cannot be treated as a ground to reject the plaint. The Appellant has approached the Court asserting that the execution of the sale deed in favour of the Respondent was not voluntary but was induced by coercion, threats, and misrepresentation”.
Advocates Manish Makhija and Simran Makhija appeared for the appellant, while Advocate O.P. Pahuja appeared for the respondents.
Background
The appellant filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed relating to a property jointly purchased by him and his father. He pleaded that the execution of the sale deed was not voluntary but was induced by threats, pressure, and misrepresentation by one of the defendants, who had previously extended a friendly loan.
According to the plaint, the appellant was assured that the sale deed would act merely as temporary security for repayment of the friendly loan, and that it would be cancelled or re-executed in his favour once the loan was repaid. He further alleged that he was threatened with harm to his children and was compelled to execute the document.
After the defendants deposited the original title documents with a bank and availed a loan, which was later classified as NPA, the bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. When the appellant challenged the transaction in a civil suit, the Single Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The appellant approached the High Court in appeal.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court, at the outset, noted that, at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint must be considered, and their truthfulness is not to be tested. The Bench held that one of the primary grounds relied upon by the Single Judge, i.e. the absence of an FIR, was legally unsustainable.
The Bench emphasised that the appellant had clearly pleaded that the sale deed was not intended as an outright transfer but as a temporary security for repayment of a friendly loan. Whether such representation was made, and whether it induced execution of the document, are matters requiring evidence at trial.
The Court also took note of the appellant’s averments regarding threats relating to his minor children, holding that “such assertions, if true, would strike at the very root of ‘free consent,’ which is a sine qua non for a valid contract under Section 10 read with Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.”
The Court made it clear that the absence of a criminal complaint cannot negate a civil plea of coercion or misrepresentation, stating that “it is therefore wholly erroneous to presume that the absence of an FIR or criminal proceedings negates the plea of coercion or misrepresentation. These are questions of fact which can only be examined on the basis of evidence at trial, not at the threshold stage of rejecting the plaint.”
The Bench concluded that the plaint disclosed a clear cause of action and that none of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were attracted.
Conclusion
Setting aside the impugned judgment, the High Court restored the suit to its original number and directed that it proceeds in accordance with law.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Cause Title: Rajiv Sareen v. M/s Divyanshu Enterprises & Others (neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9916-DB)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates Manish Makhija, Simran Makhija
Respondent: Advocate O.P. Pahuja