KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS.  [APPELLANT(S)] Vs.  NANJUNDASWAMY & ORS.           [RESPONDENT(S)]

(CIVIL APPEAL No. 7413 of 2023)

(2JB, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sudhanshu Dhulia JJ., delivered by P. NARASIMHA, J.)

Facts: Thе plaintiffs initiatеd a suit for partition and sеparatе possеssion,  with dеfеndants sееking thе rеjеction of thе plaint undеr Ordеr VII Rulе 11,  CPC.  Plaintiffs and dеfеndants No.  1 to 3 wеrе part of a joint family with propеrtiеs undеr Schеdulе A and B of thе plaint.  Thе Trial Court dismissеd thе rеjеction of plaint application,  citing a lack of disclosurе of a causе of action.  Howеvеr,  thе High Court partially allowеd thе application undеr Ordеr VII Rulе 11,  CPC,  rеjеcting thе plaint concеrning thе Schеdulе-A propеrty.  Thе High Court pointеd out that thе Schеdulе-A propеrty was sold in 1919 through a rеgistеrеd Salе Dееd,  a fact acknowlеdgеd by thе plaintiffs who did not contеst thе salе.  Additionally,  thе High Court еmphasizеd thе absеncе of еvidеncе from thе plaintiffs challеnging thе validity of thе Salе Dееd. 

Issue:

1. The true and correct application of the principle underlying the ‘rejection of plaints’ under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the facts of the case
2. The legality of rejection of a plaint in part

Arguments on behalf of counsel of appellant: Mr. P V Yogeshwaran

It is specifically averred that this practice was adopted by the karta to maintain the family and the persons in whose favour these documents were executed were also close acquaintances of the family. As such, the possession of the joint family properties was never parted. It is also pleaded that when the Plaintiffs asked for partition, initially the Defendants did not deny it, but instead, only asked the Plaintiffs to wait till the revenue records were updated so that actual partition could be effected. Hence, Plaintiffs presented a plaint for partition and separate possession. Four years after the suit was instituted, the Defendants filed a petition seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. While the Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaint does disclose a cause of action, the High Court, by the impugned order, observed that the property in survey No. 76/1 was sold way back in 1919 via a registered Sale Deed. The High Court reasoned that the Plaintiffs did not deny the sale, but only urged that there was a subsequent re-conveyancing of the property back to the joint family, without a corresponding mutation of revenue records. Impressed by the fact that the Plaintiffs neither produced any evidence to challenge the Sale Deed from 1919, nor sought any declaratory relief against the Sale Deed, High Court proceeded to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC in part, and rejected the Plaint with respect to Schedule-A property. Shri Yogeshwaran submitted that the High Court committed an error in allowing the Revision and consequently, the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

Arguments on behalf of counsel of respondents:

Shri S. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, with the assistance of Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Mr. Rajeev Gupta and Mr. Naresh Kumar, on the other hand, supported the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “the High Court committed an error in rejecting the plaint in part with respect to Schedule-A property and permitting the Plaintiffs to prosecute the case only with respect to Schedule-B property. This approach while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC is impermissible. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court even on this ground.”

With respect to the first issue, it is held that, “The High Court committed an error by examining the merits of the matter. It pre-judged the truth, legality and validity of the sale deed under which the Defendants No. 4 to 14 claim title. This is not to say that the Plaintiffs have any less burden to prove their case or even that their case is probable. Simply put, the High Court could not have anticipated the truth of the averments by assuming that the alleged previous sale of the property is complete or that it has been acted upon. The approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Under these circumstances, we set aside the judgment and the order passed by the High Court and dismiss the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, and restore the suit even with respect to properties mentioned under Schedule A of the Plaint.”

With respect to the second issue, it is held that, “In an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC a plaint cannot be rejected in part. This principle is well established and has been continuously followed since the 1936 decision in Maqsud Ahmad v. Mathra Datt & Co4. This principle is also explained in a recent decision of this Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants Ltd, which was again followed in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd.”

The court observed that, “In simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected.”