Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals arising from property disputes between a daughter, Ms. Smita P. Doshi, and her parents, Mr. Pravinchandra H. Doshi and Mrs. Indumati P. Doshi, over Flat No. 9, Matru Chhaya, Marine Drive, Mumbai. The father had acquired the flat on tenancy basis from his father. The parents filed Suit No. 6487 of 2000 seeking a declaration that the daughter was not entitled to use the suit flat and for her eviction. The City Civil Court decreed the suit on 6 December 2008, directing the daughter to vacate. The daughter appealed (First Appeal No. 95 of 2009). Subsequently, the daughter filed Suit No. 1278 of 2011 claiming ownership and other reliefs. The defendants (including legal heirs) filed a motion under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint, which was allowed on 7 November 2012. The daughter appealed that order (First Appeal No. 820 of 2013). The High Court heard both appeals together. The court found that the daughter failed to prove any independent title or right to reside in the suit flat. The earlier decree was based on evidence that the daughter had no right to occupy. The subsequent suit was barred by res judicata and limitation, and disclosed no cause of action. The court dismissed both appeals, upholding the eviction decree and the rejection of the plaint.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against Decree - Section 96 CPC - First Appeal against decree of eviction - Daughter challenged decree directing her to vacate suit flat - Court upheld decree, finding no evidence of her ownership or tenancy rights - Held that daughter failed to prove any independent right to occupy the suit premises (Paras 1-10).
B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - Plaint rejected as barred by law and no cause of action - Daughter filed subsequent suit claiming ownership and declaration - Court held that the suit was barred by res judicata and limitation, and no cause of action disclosed - Held that rejection of plaint was proper (Paras 11-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant (daughter) had any right to reside in the suit flat and whether the plaint in the subsequent suit was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for lack of cause of action and being barred by limitation.
Final Decision
Both First Appeals dismissed. Decree dated 6 December 2008 in SC Suit No. 6487 of 2000 upheld. Order dated 7 November 2012 rejecting plaint in Suit No. 1278 of 2011 upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 96 CPC
- Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- adverse possession
- ownership
- tenancy rights
- limitation
- cause of action
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (07) 30
First Appeal No. 95 of 2009 and First Appeal No. 820 of 2013
Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni with Mr. Akshay Kulkarni and Ms. Akansha Helaskar for Appellant in FA/95/2009; Ms. Sharmila U. Deshmukh with Ms. Jaya Bagwe for Appellant in FA/820/2013; Ms. Smita Vora i/by Vora and Associates for Respondent No. 2; Mr. Yahya Ghoghari for Respondent No. 1A in FA/95/2009 and Respondent No.3 in FA/820/2013; Mr. R. N. Bhagattjee for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in FA/820/2013
Pravinchandra H. Doshi (since deceased through legal heirs) and Indumati P. Doshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against a decree of eviction and an order rejecting plaint in property dispute between daughter and parents.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the eviction decree and the order rejecting her plaint, claiming right to reside in and ownership of the suit flat.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the decree of eviction passed by City Civil Court and the order rejecting her plaint in a subsequent suit.
Previous Decisions
City Civil Court decreed Suit No. 6487 of 2000 on 6 December 2008, declaring appellant not entitled to use suit flat and directing eviction. City Civil Court allowed Notice of Motion No. 2240 of 2012 on 7 November 2012, rejecting plaint in Suit No. 1278 of 2011 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Issues
Whether the appellant had any right to reside in the suit flat.
Whether the plaint in Suit No. 1278 of 2011 was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that she had independent right to reside in suit flat and that the subsequent suit disclosed cause of action.
Respondents argued that appellant had no right, the earlier decree was binding, and the subsequent suit was barred by limitation and res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to prove any independent title or right to occupy the suit flat. The earlier decree of eviction was based on evidence and became final. The subsequent suit was barred by res judicata and limitation, and disclosed no cause of action, warranting rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
First Appeal No.95 of 2009 is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inter-alia impugning the decree dated 6th December, 2008 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay thereby decreeing the Suit No. 6487 of 2000 declaring that the appellant (original defendant) is not entitled use the suit flat and directing her to remove herself with all her bags and baggages from the suit flat and for other reliefs.
First Appeal No.820 of 2013 is filed by the appellant (original plaintiff) impugning the order passed by the City Civil Court on 7th November, 2012 thereby allowing the Notice of Motion No. 2240 of 2012 filed by the original defendant nos. 4 and 5 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and rejecting the plaint filed by the appellant.
Procedural History
Parents filed Suit No. 6487 of 2000 for declaration and eviction against daughter. City Civil Court decreed suit on 6 December 2008. Daughter filed First Appeal No. 95 of 2009. Daughter then filed Suit No. 1278 of 2011 for ownership and other reliefs. Defendants filed Notice of Motion No. 2240 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to reject plaint. City Civil Court allowed motion on 7 November 2012, rejecting plaint. Daughter filed First Appeal No. 820 of 2013. Both appeals heard together and disposed by common judgment on 15 July 2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order VII Rule 11(d)
