2026 INSC 1011 Page 1 of 19

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12611 OF 2026

SHEO KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS APPELLANTS

VERSUS

M/S SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY RESPONDENT S

AND OTHERS

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J

1. Non-admissibility of a document on which the plaintiff relies

for seeking relief in his suit is sought to be made a ground for

rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

1. Whether such a ground could be

urged before commencement of the trial is the issue that arises for

consideration in this civil appeal.

2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs, who claim that on

17.10.2011, a lease deed for letting out a plot of land was entered

into with the respondents, the original defendants. The period of

1

For short, ‘the Code’

Page 2 of 19

lease was fixed for thirty-three years commencing from 01.10.2011

and ending on 30.09.20 44. The monthly rent agreed was

₹92,550/- with 7 per cent annual increase. Various other terms

and conditions were agreed between the parties and possession of

the subject land was handed over by the plaintiffs to the

defendants. The lease deed was duly registered. According to the

plaintiffs, after execution of the lease deed, the defendants took

steps to obtain a loan for construction of a building on the said

land. The defendants were asked to execute an equitable mortgage

deed of the said land by way of security for sanctioning of the loan.

Hence, on the request of the defendants, the plaintiffs agreed to

execute an equitable mortgage deed of the said land. The plaintiffs,

however, sought modification of some terms and conditions of the

lease deed dated 17.10.2011. Hence, a supplementary lease deed

was executed on 15.02.2013 between the parties. According to the

plaintiffs, the supplementary lease deed was in continuation of the

earlier lease deed. As it was executed for modifying the terms and

conditions of the earlier registered lease deed, the supplementary

lease deed did not require registration. The defendants failed to

comply with the terms and conditions of the lease deed as

modified. Hence, on 25.04.2022, the plaintiffs served a notice

Page 3 of 19

under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

2 on the

defendants seeking to terminate their tenancy by 31.05.2022.

Reply was given to this notice by the defendants and they denied

execution of the supplementary lease deed. Since the defendants

failed to vacate the premises, the plaintiffs on 21.06.2022 filed suit

for eviction of the defendants along with a claim for arrears of rent

due and payable by them, calculated as per the supplementary

lease deed.

3. The defendants on being served with the plaint moved an

application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of

the Code seeking rejection of the plaint. It was stated that as per

the plaint averments, there was a registered lease deed executed

between the parties on 17.10.2011. According to the plaintiffs, the

defendants had failed to pay lease rent as per the supplementary

lease deed that was unregistered. In view of Section 49 of the

Registration Act, 1908

3, the unregistered supplementary lease

deed could not be relied upon and its cognizance could not be

taken by a court of law. The plaint, therefore, did not disclose any

cause of action and it was also barred by law. On this basis, it was

2

For short, ‘the Act of 1882’

3

For short, ‘the Act of 1908’

Page 4 of 19

stated that the plaint was liable to be rejected in view of the

statements made in the plaint.

4. The plaintiffs filed a reply to the aforesaid application and

opposed the same. It was stated that the cause of action was

disclosed in the plaint and that the suit as filed was maintainable.

The application moved by the defendants was, thus, liable to be

rejected.

5. The trial Court considered the application filed under Order

VII Rule 11 of the Code and by the order dated 24.01.2023 held

that initially, lease deed dated 17.10.2011 was executed and also

registered. Thereafter, a supplementary lease deed was executed

on 15.02.2013 which was not registered. Both these deeds had

been placed on record. As the initial lease deed was registered and

the supplementary lease deed sought to modify the terms

mentioned in the registered lease deed, the supplementary lease

deed was an integral part of the initial lease deed. The suit was,

therefore, maintainable and not barred by any provisions of law.

On this basis, the application filed by the defendants under Order

VII Rule 11 of the Code was rejected.

Page 5 of 19

6. The defendants, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a

revision application under Section 115 of the Code before the

Patna High Court

4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court after

referring to the law with regard to consideration of an application

under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was of the view that the

plaintiffs had sought arrears of rent in terms of the supplementary

lease deed that was not registered. In view of the decision in M/S.

K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Development Consultant

Ltd.

5, if a document was inadmissible in evidence for want of

registration, none of its terms could be admitted in evidence nor

could the same be used for any collateral purpose. Various clauses

of the unregistered supplementary lease deed could not be taken

into consideration in view of the decision in Sunil Kumar Roy Vs.

M/S. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd. & others

6. It, therefore,

held that the trial Court was not correct in holding that the

supplementary lease deed was a part of the registered lease deed

dated 17.10.2011. For these reasons, the order passed by the trial

Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial

Court to decide the application filed by the defendants under Order

4

For short, ‘the High Court’

5

2008 INSC 639

6

1970 INSC 251

Page 6 of 19

VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code afresh. The plaintiffs being

aggrieved by this order have preferred the present appeal.

7. Mr. Niraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned

Senior Advocates for the plaintiffs submitted that the High Court

committed an error in going into the question of admissibility of

the supplementary lease deed dated 08.02.2013 while

adjudicating the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

At that stage, only the plaint averments and the documents filed

along with the plaint were required to be taken into consideration.

The defence sought to be raised by the defendants as regards non-

admissibility of the supplementary lease deed was not required to

be gone into as the same was a matter of trial. On a meaningful

reading of the plaint, a cause of action was clearly indicated

therein. Further, there was no statement made in the plaint that

would indicate that the suit was barred by any provision of law for

it to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code. The trial

Court rightly found that the plaint was not liable to be rejected at

this stage. The High Court committed an error in examining the

issue of admissibility of the unregistered supplementary lease deed

when, in fact, parties were yet to lead evidence and the trial had

not commenced. The decisions relied upon in the impugned order

Page 7 of 19

related to adjudication at the conclusion of the trial and not at the

stage of consideration on an application seeking rejection of the

plaint. It was, thus, submitted that the application seeking

rejection of the plaint was liable to be dismissed and the order

passed by the High Court was liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the

defendants supported the direction issued by the High Court of

remanding the proceedings for a fresh consideration. Referring to

averments made in the plaint, it was submitted that the plaintiffs

had sought to rely upon the registered lease deed dated

17.10.2011 as well as the supplementary lease deed dated

08.02.2013 that was unregistered to contend that the terms of the

registered lease deed had been modified by the supplementary

lease deed. In absence of the subsequent document being

registered, it was inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, its

contents could not be looked into for any purpose, whatsoever. The

plaintiffs had sought reliefs in the suit by relying upon the

supplementary lease deed, which was unregistered. The High

Court, therefore, was justified in holding that in the absence of

registration, the supplementary lease deed could not be looked

into. As the entire suit of the plaintiffs was based on an

Page 8 of 19

inadmissible document, no relief could be granted to the plaintiffs.

In fact, there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit

for eviction and to claim arrears of rent. He, therefore, submitted

that the High Court rightly directed consideration of the

application for rejection of the plaint afresh by taking into account

only the lease deed dated 17.10.2011. Placing reliance on the

decisions in M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs.

Amit Chand Mitra & another

7, M/S. K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt.

Ltd. (supra), Satish Chand Makhan and others Vs. Govardhan

Das Byas and others

8 and Sunil Kumar Roy (supra), it was

submitted that no interference with the order passed by the High

Court was warranted and the civil appeal ought to be dismissed.

9. We have heard the learned Senior Advocates for the parties

at length. We have perused the plaint averments and the

documents filed along with the plaint. Having given due

consideration to the rival contentions, we are of the view that the

aspect of admissibility or otherwise of a document filed along with

the plaint cannot be made the basis for seeking rejection of the

plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and/or (d) of the Code. The

7

2023 INSC 854

8

Civil Appeal No.10041 of 1983 decided on 27.10.1983

Page 9 of 19

question of admissibility or otherwise of a document is a matter for

consideration at the trial and it is only at that stage that such issue

could be raised and gone into. The question as regards

admissibility of a document would be relevant while adjudicating

the suit on merits and not while considering a prayer for rejection

of the plaint.

10. Averments in the plaint alone are material while considering

an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. It would,

therefore, be necessary to refer to the same. The material

averments read as under:

“2. That the defendants approached the plaintiffs and requested

them to let out the said land to them to construct a building over the

said land to run Educational Institution in the same. At the request

of the defendants, the plaintiffs had agreed to let out the Schedule-1

land on the terms and conditions agreed between the plaintiffs and

the defendants.

3. That a registered Lease Agreement containing the agreed terms

and conditions was executed on 17.10.2011 duly signed by both the

Lessors and Lessee for a fixed period of 33 years commencing on

01.10.2011 and ending on 30.09.2044 on monthly rent of

Rs.92,550/- with condition to increase 7% per year. The period of

01.10.2011 to 31.03.2013 was given by the Lessors to the Lessee for

construction of School Building over the said land. It was agreed that

during the said period the Lessee would pay only Rs.1000- per month

to each of the lessors for the entire land. The possession of the land

was handed over to the Lessee by the lessors on 01.10.2011.

4. That it was agreed that during the said period the lessee would

construct and develop a multistoried building over the said land for

the purpose of running Educational Institution with all facilities and

amenities on their own cost and the lessee would neither claim nor

adjust the expenses occurred by him in constructing the school

building etc. and shall not deduct any amount from the monthly rent.

5. That subsequent to the execution of the said Lease Agreement

the Lessee approached the Bank to obtain loan of Rs. Six Crore for

construction of the building for school “Open Mind" a Birla School

Page 10 of 19

over the said land. Bank asked the lessee to execute equitable

mortgage of the said land for sanction of loan as collateral securities.

Thereafter, the lessee requested the plaintiffs lessors to execute

equitable mortgage of the land as they were the owners of the said

land. On the request of the lessee the plaintiffs became ready to

execute equitable mortgage of their said land on the request of the

defendant lessee, the plaintiffs became ready to execute equitable

mortgage of their said land but for the said purpose with the consent

of both the plaintiff (lessors) and defendants (lessees) so me

modification was made in terms and conditions of the previous lease

and as such for said modification with their consent a supplementary

lease deed was executed on 15.02.2013 duly signed by both the

parties, the plaintiffs and the defendants. The said supplementary

lease was executed in continuation of the previous lease deed.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs agreed to execute equitable mortgage of their

land for sanction of loan amount Rs. Six Crore to construct building

for School “Open Minds”.

6. That as per the supplementary le ase was executed for

modification of some terms and conditions of the previous lease so

the Supplementary lease does not required to be registered.”

[emphasis supplied by us]

As regards the denial of execution of the supplementary lease

deed by the defendants in their reply notice, it was pleaded in

paragraph 14 of the plaint as under:

“14. That the defendants in its reply notice has denied the execution

of the Supplementary Lease Agreement. It wrongly alleged that the

plaintiffs by putting undue pressure on the Secretary of the

defendant No.1 had taken his several signatures on blank paper and

stamp paper without letting the defendants know that what they will

do the same. It is also alleged in the same reply notice that on the

said signature stamp paper & blank paper the said Supplementary

Lease Deed was prepared without the knowledge and consent of the

defendants. It is very strange that the Secretary of the defendant No.1

who is a Learned man and who is running a big renowned school

‘Open Minds’ in the town of Patna would give several signatures on

blank paper and blank stamp paper of Rs.5000/- without knowing

the reason for the same. On the stamp paper over which he had given

the signature with stamp it is written that the said stamp was

purchase for execution of "Lease". The said Supplementary Lease

contains sixteen pages and each & every page of the said document

contains the signatures & seal of the Secretary of defendant No. 1.

There is also the seal of Sharda Educational Society on the last page

of the said lease with signature of the said Secretary. So purely an

absurd imaginary story has been invented by the defendants. Not any

sensible man call believe the said story alleged in the reply notice. It

is also wrongly alleged in the said reply notice then the terms of a

registered document cannot be modified by an unregistered

Page 11 of 19

document. It is also wrong Misrepresentation of Law has been made

in the same reply notice that the Supplementary Lease Deed is a

transfer deed of immovable property. Under such misinterpretation

it is alleged that no immovable property can be transferred by

unregistered deed for value more than Rs.100/-. It is submitted that

by the said lease deed no property is being transferred. Further it is

wrongly alleged in the said reply notice that the defendants are

tendering the rent of the lease premises to the plaintiff by money

order which they are refusing.”

[emphasis supplied by us]

On these pleadings, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree for

eviction and arrears of rent against the defendants.

11. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under the

provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code. The

averments made in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the application filed by

them are relevant and are reproduced as under:

“7. That from the aforesaid statements made in the plaint it is quite

apparent that it is admitted that there is a registered deed of deed

dated 17.10.2011 which has been duly executed by both the parties

and is duly registered. With the said admission the plaintiffs have

contended that there is another supplementary lease and the rate of

rent given therein has not been paid by the defendants and therefore

the defendants became defaulter in payment of rent and thereby

became liable to be evicted from the premises in suit.

8. That in view of the provisions of section 49 of The Registration

Act a lease deed for a period of one year or more is necessarily

required to be registered and it is also settled law that a registered

document can not be modified or supplemented by another

unregistered document or by a decree of the civil court of competent

jurisdiction, but not otherwise.

9. That admittedly on the basis of the statements made in the

plaint the only deed of lease registered is dated 17.10.2011 and there

had been no other registered deed of modification of the said lease

and therefore under the law it is only the said deed of lease and terms

thereof which are binding on the parties. But the plaintiffs are basing

their claim on the basis of the said unregistered supplementary lease

deed and the terms contained therein which is completely contrary

to the terms of rate of rent as contained in the registered deed of

lease. More so the said supplementary deed being also barred under

Page 12 of 19

section 49 of the Registration Act of which no cognizance may be

taken by any Court of Law.

10. That in view of the aforesaid facts and position of law it is quite

apparent that the entire statements made in the plaint does not

disclose a cause of action for filing the eviction suit by the plaintiffs

against the defendants and the suit is also barred by law, being under

section 49 of The Registration Act.

11. That accordingly the plaint of the aforesaid suit is a liable to be

rejected as per the provisions of Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. As the same is apparent on the face of the plaint on the

basis of the statements made in the plaint, hence the defendants or

raising the said objection for rejection of the aforesaid plaint at the

threshold.”

[emphasis supplied by us]

12. On a complete reading of the plaint, it is revealed that

pursuant to the lease deed dated 17.10.2011, the defendants were

put in possession of the subject land on lease for a period of thirty-

three years. The monthly rent agreed was ₹92,550/- with 7 per

cent annual increase. A school building was to be constructed over

the said land by 31.03.2013 after which the defendants were to

pay ₹1,000/- per month as lease rent for the entire land. It is

further seen that according to the plaintiffs, on 15.02.2013 a

supplementary lease deed was executed modifying certain terms

and conditions of the lease deed dated 17.10.2011. The monthly

rent was revised at ₹9/- per sq. ft. for the constructed portion of

27,500 sq. ft. on each floor, the total being 1,37,500 sq. ft. Since

the defendants failed to pay the arrears of rent as revised, a notice

under Section 106 of the Act of 1882 was issued on 25.04.2022

Page 13 of 19

and the lease was terminated. It was also pleaded in the plaint that

it was not necessary to have the supplementary lease deed

registered. Besides seeking eviction of the defendants, the

plaintiffs also sought a decree for arrears of rent.

13. According to the defendants, it was the case of the plaintiffs

that as the defendants had defaulted in payment of the revised

rent as per the supplementary lease deed that was not registered,

they were sought to be evicted. Referring to Section 49 of the Act

of 1908, it was contended that the supplementary lease deed could

not be relied upon as it was unregistered and its cognizance could

not be taken by any court of law. Therefore, according to the

defendants, the plaint did not disclose a cause of action for filing

the suit and it was also barred by law in view of Section 49 of the

Act of 1908.

14. It must be borne in mind that rejection of a plaint under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code results in non-suiting the plaintiff

without any trial. Considering the drastic consequence flowing

from the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code,

it is only the plaint averments and the documents filed along with

the plaint that can be looked into to consider whether it discloses

a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. In

Page 14 of 19

this regard, reference may be made to the decision in P.V. Guru

Raj Reddy Rep. by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & An other Vs. P.

Neeradha Reddy & Ors.

9. In paragraphs 5 and 6, it has been held

as under:

“5. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a

drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the

threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under

Order VII rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently

held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has

to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action

or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise

of power under Order VII rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the

written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is

wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do

not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears

to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other

situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the

trial.

6. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and

proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein are correct,

which is what the Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the

said pleadings ex facie discloses that the suit is barred by limitation

or is barred under any other provision of law. The claim of the

plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving

rise to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as

correct. At the stage of consideration of the application under Order

VII rule 11 the stand of the defendants in the written statement would

be altogether irrelevant.”

15. Section 49 of the Act of 1908 specifies the effect of non-

registration of a document that is required to be registered under

Section 17 of the Act of 1908 or by any provisions of the Act of

1882. Absence of registration of such document would not affect

any immovable property comprised therein or be received as

9

2015 INSC 113

Page 15 of 19

evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring

such power. However, as per the proviso to Section 49 of the Act

of 1908, an unregistered document affecting immovable property

that is required to be registered can be received as evidence of any

collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered

instrument. It, thus, becomes clear that where a document

required to be registered by Section 17 of the Act of 1908 or under

the Act of 1882 is not registered, a party relying upon that

document can attempt to rely upon it as evidence of any collateral

transaction that is not required to be effected by a registered

instrument. In other words, whether a party can seek benefit of

the proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908 is a matter to be

adjudicated by the Court at the trial of a suit. Without an

opportunity to lead evidence in that regard, a party cannot be

entirely shut out on the ground that the document in question

though required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act of

1908 or under the Act of 1882 is unregistered. Without granting

an opportunity to a party relying on such document to lead

evidence to either attempt to prove such unregistered document or

to rely upon the proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908 so as to

give evidence of any collateral transaction that is not required to

Page 16 of 19

be effected by a registered document, a party cannot be prevented

at the inception itself from even relying upon such document. In

any event, the contention that a document cannot be relied upon

as it is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration is a matter

that can hardly be considered under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code

while seeking rejection of the plaint. At that stage, such

adjudication would be premature and that too without permitting

a party relying upon such unregistered document to lead evidence

as regards a collateral transaction.

16. The matter can be viewed from another angle. In the plaint,

it was specifically pleaded by the plaintiffs in paragraph 6 that as

the supplementary lease deed was executed for modifying some

terms and conditions of the registered lease, it did not require

registration. In the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the

Code by the defendants, a plea was raised that the supplementary

lease deed was required to be registered and, therefore, in absence

of its registration, cognizance of the same could not be taken. It is,

thus, the defence of the defendants that the supplementary lease

deed requires registration. While considering an application under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments made in the plaint

have to be taken at their face value. The stand of the defendants

Page 17 of 19

as taken in the application for rejection of the plaint would be

wholly immaterial as held in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy (supra). Thus,

permitting the defendants to raise an issue as to non-registration

of the supplementary lease deed while seeking rejection of the

plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code would amount to

ignoring the plaintiffs’ averments, which state that the said

document did not require registration. Material that is beyond the

plaint or documents filed along with it would , therefore, be

required to be taken into consideration for adjudicating the

defendants’ prayer for rejection of the plaint. This is wholly

impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule

11 of the Code.

17. While the trial Court proceed ed to hold that the

supplementary lease deed sought to amend and modify the terms

of the registered lease deed and, thus, the suit was maintainable,

the High Court proceed ed to record a finding that the

supplementary lease deed not being registered, it was inadmissible

in evidence. The High Court, thereafter, remanded the matter to

decide the application afresh without taking into consideration the

supplementary lease deed that was unregistered. In our view, both

the Courts misdirected themselves while adjudicating the

Page 18 of 19

application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the

Code. The issue of admissibility or otherwise of a document would

be the subject matter of trial. Recording a finding that a particular

document was inadmissible in evidence even before parties lead

evidence would be contrary to law.

18. Having considered the plaint averments in their entirety and

on a meaningful reading of the same, we are of the view that the

plaint discloses a cause of action and that it is not barred by any

law. The plaint is, therefore, not liable to be rejected under Order

VII Rule 11(a) and/or (d) of the Code.

19. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the

High Court dated 17.12.2024 in Civil Revision No.87 of 2023 is set

aside. The application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule

11(a) and (d) of the Code is rejected. The trial Court shall proceed

to decide the suit on its own merits and in accordance with law. It

is clarified that observations made hereinabove are only for the

purpose of deciding the present appeal. We have not gone into the

question of admissibility or otherwise of the supplementary lease

deed dated 15.02.2013. The trial Court shall decide the suit on its

own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove.

Page 19 of 19

The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no orders as to cost.

Pending Interlocutory Application is also disposed of.

…...………………………..J.

[UJJAL BHUYAN ]

.…..………………………..J.

[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI,

SEPTEMBER 9, 2026.