Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-defendant No. 3 filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala in O.S. No. 355/2017, which dismissed I.A. No. VIII filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. The respondent-plaintiffs, who are the major daughters and minor son of defendant No. 1, had instituted the suit against defendants No. 1, 2, and 3 seeking a declaration that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and for partition. The petitioner contended that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by law. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no error in the Trial Court's order and dismissed the revision petition, affirming that the suit is maintainable and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) - Maintainability - The Trial Court dismissed an application for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant-petitioner. The High Court held that the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) as the suit is not barred by any law and discloses a cause of action. The plaintiffs, being major daughters and a minor son, sought declaration of joint family properties and partition, which is maintainable. (Paras 1-3)
B) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Rights of Daughters and Minor Son - The suit was filed by major daughters and a minor son of defendant No.1 seeking declaration that suit schedule properties are joint family properties and for partition. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's order, noting that the plaint discloses a cause of action and is not barred by limitation or any other law. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for rejection of the plaint in a suit for declaration of joint family properties and partition.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the Trial Court's order dated 19.07.2023 which rejected the application for rejection of plaint.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Maintainability of Suit
- Joint Family Property
- Partition
- Major Daughters' Rights
- Minor Son's Rights
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (03) 1
Sri. Rajesh Mahale, Senior Advocate for Sri. Jayaraj D S, Advocate for Petitioner; Sri. Vijaya Kumar C, Advocate for R1; Sri. P M Siddamappa, Advocate for R2 and R3; Sri. B S Jeevan Kumar, Advocate for R4
Smt B R Swetha, Kum B R Smitha, Sri B R Rudresh, Sri B A Rajanna
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition challenging the order dismissing an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner-defendant No. 3 sought rejection of the plaint in O.S. No. 355/2017.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the suit for declaration of joint family properties and partition was not maintainable and barred by law.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. VIII filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by law.
Respondents argued that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the suit was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC if it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by any law. The suit for declaration of joint family properties and partition by major daughters and a minor son is maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner-defendant No. 3 is before this Court in civil revision, challenging the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No. VIII in O.S. No. 355/2017 dismissing an application filed for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908.
Respondent-plaintiffs who are the major daughters and minor son of the defendant No.1 had initiated suit in O.S.No.355/2017 against defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, seeking: to declare that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and for partition.
Procedural History
The respondent-plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 355/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala seeking declaration and partition. The petitioner-defendant No. 3 filed I.A. No. VIII under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court dismissed the application on 19.07.2023. The petitioner then filed the present civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d), Section 151, Section 115
