Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from an order dated 03/05/2023 passed by the learned trial court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for want of cause of action. The appellants, as plaintiffs, had filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, claiming that a Gift Deed executed on 22/11/2017 was null and void and seeking a declaration that they were co-owners of the suit property. They also sought a mandatory injunction directing defendant Nos.1 and 2 to demolish an illegal commercial building constructed on the suit property. The defendant No.1 initially filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 21/12/2019, which was rejected by the trial court on the same date holding that the suit was not barred by law. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed another application under Order VII Rule 11 vide Exh.22, which the trial court allowed, rejecting the plaint for want of cause of action. The plaintiffs appealed under Section 96 CPC. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, set aside the impugned order and restored the suit to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law. The court held that the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold if the allegations, taken as true, disclose a cause of action. The plaintiffs' claim that the gift deed was null and void and that they were co-owners raised triable issues that require evidence. The court also noted that the earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 had been rejected, and the subsequent application on similar grounds was not maintainable. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC - Cause of Action - The trial court rejected the plaint holding no cause of action, but the High Court found that the plaintiffs' claim that the gift deed was null and void and that they were co-owners disclosed a cause of action requiring trial. Held that the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold if the allegations, taken as true, give rise to a cause of action (Paras 8-15). B) Property Law - Gift Deed - Validity - Co-ownership - The plaintiffs alleged that the gift deed dated 22/11/2017 was executed without their consent and that they were co-owners of the suit property. The High Court held that such allegations raise triable issues regarding the validity of the gift deed and the plaintiffs' title, which cannot be decided without evidence (Paras 5-10). C) Injunction - Mandatory Injunction - Demolition - The plaintiffs sought mandatory injunction for demolition of a commercial building constructed on the suit property. The High Court observed that the relief of demolition is consequential to the declaration of title and cannot be said to be without cause of action at the pleading stage (Paras 5, 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of cause of action, when the plaintiffs claimed the gift deed was null and void and sought declaration of co-ownership and demolition of construction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 03/05/2023, and restored the suit to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC
- cause of action
- rejection of plaint
- gift deed validity
- co-ownership
- mandatory injunction
- demolition
