K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE revision petition is against the order dismissing an application for rejection of a plaint on the ground that the suit was without cause of action and there is no basis for the relief of mandatory injunction which the plaintiff has sought. The lower Court has observed that the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief would be considered only at the time of trial and the suit cannot be rejected for the reasons set forth in the application. I have seen through the averments in the plaint. The caption used in the plaint is that it is a suit for mandatory injunction. The crux in the plaint is that the plaintiff has purchased the property of 500 square yards in Faridabad at the basement and ground floor from the defendant and that the building which is comprised of 1st and 2nd floors as well was offered to be sold on a first offer basis before it was sold to anyone else. The averment in the plaint is that, "keeping in view the future expansion in the family, the above said property was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant on the condition that whenever other parts of the property i.e. the 1st and 2nd floors, would be sold by the defendant, it would be the first right of the plaintiffs to purchase the same at the market price prevailing at that time."
(2.) IT is admitted by both the parties that the sale deed itself does not contain any such condition or a preferential offer to the plaintiff and evidently the plaintiff was making out a case of a condition which did not exist in the document. The cause of action for the suit as stated is that the defendant committed a breach of the first right of the plaintiffs when dealers came to the suit property with intending buyers on 15.12.2010 and that the defendant flatly refused to accede to the "legitimate requests of the plaintiffs". If I should make any meaning out of the plaint, I understand the relief of mandatory injunction as containing an enforcement of a right of preemption. A right of preemption must exist under statute or by express covenant between parties. The averment in the plaint is that when the property was purchased by him, he was offered the right of purchase of other floors as well. If the document of sale itself does not contain such a clause, then it only means that the plaintiff is giving an imaginary cause of action which is totally unfounded. There is no reference even to a contemplated price as settled between the parties. The statute that mandates that the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must contain a cause of action and a provision that enables a party to apply to the Court for rejection of a plaint if there is no cause of action, must be understood in a meaningful way that the cause of action is something which is apparent from the facts pleaded. The cause of action is illusory, if they are used in empty words to file a plaint. The Court ought to see from the body of the plaint to find whether there really does exist cause of action. I find this to be totally an illusory relief which is not founded on any covenant or law. I reckon the suit itself to be an attempt to blackmail the defendant from not selling the property and causing a needless fetter on the power of alienation by a lawful owner. The necessary incident of ownership to a property is a right of alienation and that is the reason why the law frowns upon any fetter against sale and there are express provisions under Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act which inhibit any clause regarding a right of alienation. If there could be a fetter of alienation, it must be founded on strict principles brought out through statutory prescriptions themselves. I find the suit has been filed vexatiously and it ought to have been thrown out at the threshold without having to go through a trial. The trial Court had not exercised the jurisdiction which vested in it to examine the plaint in its proper perspective and rejected the plaint in the manner sought for by the applicant. The order impugned is set aside and the revision petition is allowed with costs determined at Rs. 5,000/ -.;