ORDER : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04.04.2023 passed in I.A. No.313 of 2022 in O.S. No.217 of 2018 by the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. Intro: Petitioner is the Defendant No. 1. The suit O.S. No.217 of 2018 was filed by the Respondents seeking declaration of title of suit schedule properties and for recovery of possession with regard to two house plots of an extent of 440 square yards and 295 square yards respectively in Sy.Nos.19/1, 19/2, 10/5, 10/4, Plot No. 215 at China Waltair Village, Visakhapatnam. 3. Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement denying the claim. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed I.A. No.313 of 2022 seeking to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) & (d) r/w Section 151 C.P.C. The said application, on contest, was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that there are triable issues. Hence, the present Revision is filed. 4. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the Respondents. 5. Before going into the contentions of the respective counsel, the pleadings in the plaint, in brief, are as follows: The Respondents/Plaintiffs claim to be the absolute owners of the suit schedule property having succeeded to the same after the death of the husband of the first Plaintiff and father of the second Plaintiff by name Raja Rao. It is their case that during the life time of late Raja Rao, the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority had issued land acquisition notification in respect of the schedule mentioned properties and at that stage, late Raja Rao approached this Court along with other land owners challenging the land acquisition proceedings and the same was allowed by this Court on 14.07.1983 and the land acquisition proceedings were quashed and the said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 806 of 1984 and batch dated 30.03.1995. 6. It was further pleaded in the plaint that when the Plaintiffs came to the suit schedule properties, they were surprised to see a compound wall constructed by the Defendants on the eastern side (100 feet road side) and upon questioning, the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 informed them that late Raja Rao had executed registered sale deeds in his favour in the year 1985. On being informed of the same, the Plaintiffs pleaded that they had applied for Encumbrance Certificate and upon reading of the extracts of the Sale Deeds, it is noticed that late Raja Rao alone executed above Sale Deeds during the pendency of the Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Plaintiffs also pleaded that the said Sale Deeds were cancelled unilaterally by way of registered documents bearing Nos. 111/1999 and 1112/1999 dated 19.03.1999 by late Raja Rao since no consideration was passed under the Sale Deed of 1985. 7. It is further pleaded that late Raja Rao had executed a Will dated 02.05.2012 where under item No. 1 of the scheduled property devolved on the second Plaintiff and item No. 2 of the scheduled property devolved upon the first Plaintiff. On 18.10.2013, Raja Rao expired and it was further pleaded that on 05.03.2018, the Plaintiffs issued legal notice calling upon the Defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the scheduled properties and the same were returned as un-served. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration and consequential reliefs. 8. Contentions: Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 Sri K.S. Murthy contended that there is no dispute that late Raja Rao had executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner. In the said document, there are recitals of delivery of receipt of sale consideration and delivery of possession. As the receipt of consideration is admitted, there was no occasion for late Raja Rao to cancel the Registered Sale Deeds unilaterally. It was further contended in the plaint that there is no mention as to when the Plaintiffs claim to be dispossessed and in the absence of this foundational cause of action, the suit could not have been entertained by the trial Court. 9. Sri Sri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner contended that unilateral cancellation is void as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (2010) 15 SCC 207 . Learned counsel also relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramisetty Venkatanna and another v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others 2023 Live Law (SC) 372, Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives and others (2020) 7 SCC 366 and Kum.Geetha, D/o Late Krishna and others v. Nanjundaswamy and others 2023 AIR 9SC) 5516. Learned counsel also relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramisetty Venkatanna and another v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others 2023 Live Law (SC) 372, Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives and others (2020) 7 SCC 366 and Kum.Geetha, D/o Late Krishna and others v. Nanjundaswamy and others 2023 AIR 9SC) 5516. These Judgments were cited to substantiate their plea that plaint can be rejected when either there is no cause of action or barred by limitation. 10. Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the Respondents contended that a sale deed without consideration is also void and the unilateral cancellation cannot be faulted with. The Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishnan v. Rajesh Kumar and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1097 was cited for that purpose. Learned counsel also cited the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath v. Gian Chand and another (2022) 11 SCC 460 , Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (2003) 6 SCC 595 and Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another (1999) 3 SCC 573 and Satyapal Anand v. State of M.P (2016) 10 SCC 767 . 11. It is his contention that these are issues which have to be considered by the trial Court in a full-fledged trial and the Plaintiff should establish as to how and in what mode the consideration was paid to sustain the sale deed. It was further contended that merely because the Registered Sale Deed is executed in favour of the Petitioner, that is not sufficient to establish passage of consideration and to establish the validity of a particular document. 12. In the light of the above contentions, the following issue falls for consideration:- Whether the plaint is liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC? 13. Before considering the legality of the impugned order of the trial Court, it is necessary to consider the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the relevant precedents on the subject. The most often quoted Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this aspect is T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 46, wherein it was held that the right to sue should be apparent on a meaningful reading of the plaint. The Paragraph 5 thereof reads as under: "5. The most often quoted Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this aspect is T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 46, wherein it was held that the right to sue should be apparent on a meaningful reading of the plaint. The Paragraph 5 thereof reads as under: "5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the Petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember 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, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever 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. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible lawsuits." 14. In a recent Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 Livelaw SC 372 after referring to all the case law on this aspect held that a plaint can be rejected if the same is vexatious, raising an illusory cause of action and barred by limitation. The Paragraph 6 thereof reads as under:- "6. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on the applicability of Order VII Rule XI to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the plaint ought to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation." 15. Reasoning: On a reading of the plaint, no date of dispossession was mentioned in the plaint as narrated above nor was there any plea with regard to possession or dispossession at any point of time or payment of any municipal taxes for the property. 16. Reasoning: On a reading of the plaint, no date of dispossession was mentioned in the plaint as narrated above nor was there any plea with regard to possession or dispossession at any point of time or payment of any municipal taxes for the property. 16. The second aspect of the case is that the basis of the claim is the unilateral cancellation of the Sale Deed by late Raja Rao on the ground that consideration under the sale deed of 1985 is not received by the vendor Late Raja Rao. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi's case (1) supra held that unilateral cancellation of sale deed is impermissible. As narrated above, the counsel for the Respondent relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishnan's case (5) supra wherein it was held that the sale deed without consideration is void. 17. The question now is, even assuming that the plea of the Plaintiffs that consideration was not paid under the 1985 Registered Sale Deeds, is unilateral cancellation of Sale Deed permissible? 18. The procedure known to law for cancellation of Sale Deed irrespective of the fact whether it is void or voidable is through a regularly constituted suit as contemplated under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under:- "31. When cancellation may be ordered.- (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation. 19. As per the above provision of law, a person against whom a voidable document is standing can file a suit if he has a reasonable apprehension that a Sale Deed, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, will have to file a suit for cancellation of such document. 19. As per the above provision of law, a person against whom a voidable document is standing can file a suit if he has a reasonable apprehension that a Sale Deed, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, will have to file a suit for cancellation of such document. Even a void Sale Deed can be cancelled only through a Civil Court. The only exception is that a third party who is not a party to the Sale Deed need not specifically challenge a void Sale Deed. The unilateral cancellation of Sale Deed in this case is by the vendor of the Sale Deeds of 1985 and the same is in apparent conflict with the procedure provided for cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 20. If the unilateral cancellation on account of non-receipt of consideration is permitted, then the vendor would be adjudicating his own case with regard to non-receipt of consideration in the face of his admission regarding receipt of consideration under the Registered Sale Deed. Such a document is nothing but a mere fancy of the transferor and irrelevant even to give a cause of action to institute suit by the successors of such documents. 21. The unilaterally cancelled Sale Deeds do not have any bearing on the title of the Petitioner. A deed of cancellation of a sale unilaterally executed by the transferor does not create, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the property and is of no effect. Such a document does not create any encumbrance in the property already transferred. 22. In this context, the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court at Paragraph 4 in Thota Ganga Laxmi' s case (1) supra is referred below: "4. In our opinion, there was no need for the appellants to approach the civil court as the said cancellation deed dated 04-08-2005 as well as registration of the same was wholly void and non est and can be ignored altogether. For illustration, if A transfers a piece of land to B by a registered sale deed, then, if it is not disputed that A had the title to the land, that title passes to B on the registration of the sale deed (retrospectively from the date of the execution of the same) and B then becomes the owner of the land. If A wants to subsequently get that sale deed cancelled, he has to file a civil suit for cancellation or else he can request B to sell the land back to A but by no stretch of imagination, can a cancellation deed be executed or registered. This is unheard of in law." 23. The unilateral cancellation of the documents in writ jurisdiction was not interfered with by Madhya Pradesh High Court and the same was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyapal Anand's case (9 supra) on the ground that such cancellation would not constitute any violation of provisions of Registration Act, 1908. The said judgment cited by the counsel for the Respondent is of no avail to the facts of this case, as the mere registration of unilaterally cancelled sale deed has nil effect on the title that passed on to the purchaser under a sale deed. 24. In Amarnath v. Gian Chand and another (2022) 11 SCC 460 cited by the counsel for Respondent to point out that mere registration would not bring down curtains on the issue of title. In that case, the power of attorney holder got the sale deed executed without knowledge of the plaintiff even though the power of attorney was cancelled. Then a suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction and the mutation showing the sale as null and void. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the provisions of the Registration Act held that mere registration of sale deed would not shut out the question on title. This Judgment has no relevance to the facts of this case as there are no allegations of fraud or procedural violations in the registration of sale deeds in favour of the Petitioner. 25. The counsel for the Respondent also relied on a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Kumar Vs Mohan Thedani AIR 2003 SC 2418 to substantiate his plea that the receipt of consideration can be disproved under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. Even assuming that sale consideration under sale deed can be disproved under section 91 of the Evidence Act, the same would at best come into play only in a suit for cancellation of sale deed filed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. 26. Even assuming that sale consideration under sale deed can be disproved under section 91 of the Evidence Act, the same would at best come into play only in a suit for cancellation of sale deed filed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. 26. In Kewal Krishnan's case (5 supra) cited by the counsel for the Respondents, the suit was initially filed for injunction and subsequently, the prayer was amended seeking relief to declare the sale deeds and power of attorney as null and void. This is the fundamental difference, as in this case, the sale deeds are not under challenge, but a declaration is sought on the strength of unilaterally cancelled sale deeds. As mentioned supra, such a unilaterally cancelled sale deeds do not have any effect on the title that passed under the Registered Sale Deeds and irrelevant even to give a cause of action to institute a suit by the executor of such documents. 27. Coming back to the merits of the case, If the unilaterally canceled sale deeds are to be ignored, then the cause of action for cancellation of sale deeds or for declaration that the sale deeds are void or declaration of title starts from the day the sale deeds executed in favour of the Petitioner in the year 1985 either under Section 17 or under Article 58 and 65 of the Limitation Act. 28. A reading of the plaint would indicate that by clever drafting, the sale deeds were not challenged intentionally. A similar fact scenario arose in Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (2020) 16 SCC 601 , the plaintiff without seeking to set-aside the gift deed executed about 22 years prior to the institution of the suit, merely sought for declaration that the gift is a showy and sham document. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the plaintiff sought to bring the suit within limitation without specifically seeking to set-aside the gift deed by clever drafting and rejected the plaint as barred by limitation. The observations at Paragraphs 7 and 8 are relevant and are extracted below. (2020) 16 SCC 601 , at page 610: "7. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the plaintiff sought to bring the suit within limitation without specifically seeking to set-aside the gift deed by clever drafting and rejected the plaint as barred by limitation. The observations at Paragraphs 7 and 8 are relevant and are extracted below. (2020) 16 SCC 601 , at page 610: "7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the case in hand and the averments in the plaint, we are of the opinion that both the courts below have materially erred in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff himself along with his brother. The deed of gift was a registered gift deed. The execution of the gift deed is not disputed by the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift and therefore the same is not binding on him. However, it is required to be noted that for approximately 22 years, neither the plaintiff nor his brother (who died on 15-12-2002) claimed at any point of time that the gift deed was showy deed of gift. One of the executants of the gift deed, brother of the plaintiff during his lifetime never claimed that the gift deed was a showy deed of gift. It was the appellant herein- original defendant who filed the suit in the year 2001 for partition and the said suit was filed against his brothers to which the plaintiff was joined as Defendant 10. It appears that the summon of the suit filed by the defendant being TS (Partition) Suit No. 203 of 2001 was served upon Defendant 10-plaintiff herein in the year 2001 itself. Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003. Even from the averments in the plaint, it appears that during these 22 years i.e. the period from 1981 till 2001/2003, the suit property was mortgaged by the appellant herein-original defendant and the mortgage deed was executed by the defendant. Despite the same, he instituted the present suit in the year 2003. Even from the averments in the plaint, it appears that during these 22 years i.e. the period from 1981 till 2001/2003, the suit property was mortgaged by the appellant herein-original defendant and the mortgage deed was executed by the defendant. Therefore, considering the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in T. Arivandandam2 and others, as stated above, and as the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 8. At this stage, it is required to be noted that, as such, the plaintiff has never prayed for any declaration to set aside the gift deed. We are of the opinion that such a prayer is not asked cleverly. If such a prayer would have been asked, in that case, the suit can be said to be clearly barred by limitation considering Article 59 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, only a declaration is sought to get out of the provisions of the Limitation Act, more particularly, Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The aforesaid aspect has also not been considered by the High Court as well as the learned trial court." 29. In view of the above, it is quite apparent that the suit without seeking to challenge the sale deeds of the year 1985 in favour of the Petitioner was sought to be brought within the limitation by smart drafting by seeking declaration of title and consequential relief of possession only. In the opinion of this Court, the cause of action against the Petitioner was from the day the sale deed was executed in the year 1985 and the present suit filed in the year 2018 after a lapse of 34 years is hopelessly barred by Limitation. 30. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is set aside and the revision petition is allowed and the Plaint in O.S. No.217 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is rejected. No order as to costs. 30. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is set aside and the revision petition is allowed and the Plaint in O.S. No.217 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is rejected. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.