Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Rizvi Builders, a proprietary concern of Mr. Akhtar Hasan Rizvi, filed a suit against the respondents, who are members of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) known as Goswami Shrimad Gokulnathji Maharaj Hindu Undivided Family, and its Karta and other family members. The suit sought specific performance of an agreement dated 30th April 2004, by which the respondents agreed to sell a property to the appellant for development. The appellant claimed that it had paid earnest money and was put in possession of the property. However, the respondents terminated the agreement on 10th January 2005, alleging breach by the appellant. The appellant then filed the suit for specific performance and injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with its possession. The respondents filed a Chamber Summons under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action. The learned Single Judge allowed the Chamber Summons and rejected the plaint. The appellant appealed against that order. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action because the agreement had been terminated and the appellant's possession, if any, was permissive and had come to an end. The court observed that the appellant had no subsisting right to seek specific performance or injunction. The court also noted that the appellant had not paid the balance consideration and had failed to perform its obligations under the agreement. The court upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Cause of Action - The court examined whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and held that the plaint was liable to be rejected as it failed to show any subsisting title or possession in the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim was based on an agreement that had been terminated, and no further right remained. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Agreement to Sell - Termination - The plaintiff, a builder, entered into an agreement with the defendant for development of property. The agreement was terminated by the defendant. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit for specific performance and injunction. The court held that upon termination, the plaintiff had no right to continue in possession or seek specific performance. (Paras 5-8) C) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Suit - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The court reiterated that if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it is liable to be rejected. The plaintiff's suit was based on a terminated agreement and thus no cause of action survived. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and whether the suit was maintainable for want of title and possession.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Single Judge rejecting the plaint is upheld.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Cause of Action
- Title
- Possession
- Maintainability
