ORDER : 1. This is the plaintiff's Appeal challenging the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the suit does not disclose any cause of action. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title on the plea that the subject property was purchased by his father Ganpat Ram Sen in auction conducted by the District Cooperative Land Development Bank, Saraipali (not made party in the suit). 3. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not filed any document in support of the plaint allegations either in the form of sale letter or letter of allotment issued by the Bank or the revenue record carrying entry that the plaintiff's father has purchased the property in the auction conducted by the bank. 4. The trial Court, after detailed discussion, has observed that as per the plaintiff's case, the suit property was owned by Jwala Prasad Sharma who obtained loan by mortgaging the suit land with the District Cooperative Land Development Bank, Saraipali. On default of payment of the loan amount, the said bank auctioned the mortgaged property in which the plaintiff's father was the highest bidder, therefore, he deposited the entire auction amount and was settled in possession in June, 1997. It was also observed that defendant No.37 Abdul Hamid has submitted an order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh on 30.10.2006 and 17.7.2007 by which the bank's appeal was allowed and the Deputy Registrar's order dated 29.10.2005 was set aside and consequently, the sale was not confirmed. Since confirmation was mandatory under Section 28(3) of the CG Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Adhiniyam, 1999, Ganpat Ram Sen was not entitled to own the land. The Second Appeal preferred by Ganpat Ram Sen was also dismissed. 5. Since under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC the plaintiff was required to submit along with the plaint the documents on which the plaint allegations are made and the relief is claimed in the suit, the trial Court has found that in the absence of any document of title in plaintiff's favour having been presented along with the plaint; apparently the property having belonged to Jwala Prasad Sharma and the sale conducted by the bank against Jwala Prasad Sharma was not confirmed in favour of the plaintiff's father, there is no cause of action for filing the suit. 6. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The duty of the Court while considering the defendant's plea for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been outlined by the Supreme Court in the matter of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and another, AIR 1977 SC 2421 observing that if on a meaningful – not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial Court should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. 8. In the case at hand, admittedly, there is no document of title in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of which he can plead that cause of action for filing the suit has arisen. A suit claiming title over immovable property is to be based either on successory title or on the sale deed or grant by the Government or by sale confirmation letter if the property is purchased in auction or by way of adverse possession, if the plaintiff's open and peaceful possession is hostile to the original owner for a continuous period of 12 years. Since the plaintiff has not filed suit claiming successory title or on the basis of adverse possession and there is no other document to prove his title, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It is a case where the plaintiff has not averred in the plaint nor produced any document disclosing a clear right to sue. 9. In the result, the Appeal has no substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. HEADLINES FA No. 121 of 2017 If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, clear right to sue is not disclosed nor any document has been filed in support of the pleaded right to sue, the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.