Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants, filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibaug, rejecting their application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2011. The suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) claiming ownership of a property (City Survey No.627, Municipal House No.94, Alibaug) and a Hanuman temple situated thereon. The plaintiffs alleged that the property was originally owned by Durgabai and Radhabai, and after a series of wills, the plaintiffs became owners. They contended that although the property was recorded as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, it was actually a private trust of the Prabhaskar family, and they had applied for cancellation of the entry. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, which bars civil courts from entertaining suits relating to public trusts. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the bar under Section 80 did not apply because the plaintiffs claimed the property was private. The High Court upheld this decision, reiterating that for an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d), only the plaint averments are relevant, and the defence cannot be considered. The court noted that the plaintiffs had specifically pleaded that the property was not a public trust and that they had applied for cancellation of the entry. Therefore, the suit was not barred by Section 80 of the Act. The revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Bar of Suit - The court must read the plaint as a whole and consider only the averments in the plaint; the defence of the defendants cannot be looked into for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The question whether the suit is barred by any law must be determined solely on the basis of the plaint allegations. (Paras 8-10) B) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Section 80 - The bar under Section 80 of the Act applies only if the suit property is a public trust property. If the plaint alleges that the property is a private trust property and not a public trust, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The mere entry in the register of public trusts does not conclusively determine the nature of the trust; the plaintiffs are entitled to seek a declaration that the property is not a public trust. (Paras 11-15) C) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 80 - Bar of Suit - The bar under Section 80 is not absolute; it applies only to suits relating to the administration of a public trust. If the plaintiffs claim that the property is their private property and not a public trust, the civil court can decide the issue. The trial court correctly held that the plaint discloses a cause of action and the suit is not barred by Section 80 of the Act. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC
- rejection of plaint
- plaint as a whole
- defence not relevant
- Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- bar of jurisdiction
- civil court jurisdiction
- trust property
- private trust
- public trust
