Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by Mohan Hirachand Shah (defendant no.1) against an order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, rejecting his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint. The respondent no.1 (plaintiff), along with respondent nos.2 to 4 (defendant nos.2 to 4), are the daughters of the applicant. The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in three suit properties (A, B, and C), claiming they are ancestral properties of the joint Hindu family. The applicant-defendant no.1 contended that properties A and B were his separate properties acquired under a registered Release Deed dated 23rd November 1973, and property C was his self-acquired property sold in 2021. He argued that the plaint contained only a bald assertion of ancestral character and suppressed previous judicial determinations in Second Appeal Nos. 708 of 2008 and 38 of 2009, where this Court had held that properties A and B were owned exclusively by defendant no.1. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application, holding that from the plaint it could not be inferred that there was no cause of action and that the plaintiff deserved an opportunity to adduce evidence. The High Court, in revision, upheld the trial court's order. The court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff can be looked into, not the defendant's documents. The plaint disclosed a cause of action as it asserted that the suit properties were ancestral and that there had been no partition. The court noted that the previous judgments relied upon by the applicant were not part of the plaint and could not be considered at this stage. The court also observed that the question of whether the properties are ancestral or self-acquired is a matter for trial, and the plaint cannot be rejected merely because the defendant disputes the character of the properties. The revision was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - In a suit for partition, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if the plaint discloses a cause of action, even if the defendant disputes the ancestral character of the properties. The court must look only at the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiff, not the defendant's defence. (Paras 11-18) B) Hindu Law - Partition - Ancestral Property - Pleading - A bald assertion that suit properties are ancestral may be sufficient to maintain a suit for partition; the plaintiff is not required to plead detailed evidence at the stage of rejection of plaint. The question of whether properties are ancestral or self-acquired is a matter for trial. (Paras 12-16) C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Consideration of Documents - While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court can look at the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff, but not the defendant's documents such as a release deed or sale deed, unless they are admitted by the plaintiff. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in a partition suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for alleged lack of cause of action, when the plaintiff asserts that the suit properties are ancestral and the defendant contends they are self-acquired or separate properties.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application and upheld the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, dated 15th March 2024, rejecting the application for rejection of the plaint. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Cause of Action
- Ancestral Property
- Partition Suit
- Pleading Requirements
