Case Note & Summary
The present Regular First Appeal was filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2023 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in O.S.No.424/2022. By the impugned judgment, the trial court allowed an application filed by the defendants No.6 and 7 under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of CPC and rejected the plaint. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties claiming that the properties were joint family properties and that they were entitled to a share. The respondents, who were the defendants, contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The trial court accepted these contentions and rejected the plaint. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that a suit for partition is a continuing right and the right to seek partition does not extinguish by lapse of time. The plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action as the plaintiffs claimed that the properties were joint family properties and that they were entitled to a share. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal, directing the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The trial court rejected the plaint in a partition suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The High Court held that a suit for partition is a continuing right and the right to seek partition does not extinguish by lapse of time. The plaint disclosed a cause of action as the plaintiffs claimed joint family property and sought partition. The rejection was set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Hindu Law - Partition - Perpetual Right - Under Hindu Law, a coparcener has a perpetual right to seek partition of joint family property. The right to partition is not barred by limitation as long as the property remains joint. The trial court erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 5-8) C) Limitation Act - Applicability to Partition Suits - The Limitation Act, 1963 does not prescribe a period of limitation for filing a suit for partition of joint family property. The right to partition is a continuing right and the suit is not barred by limitation. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) of CPC on the ground that the suit for partition was barred by limitation and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.02.2023, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Section 96 CPC
- Limitation Act 1963
- Hindu Succession Act 1956
- Partition Suit
- Rejection of Plaint
- Cause of Action
- Perpetual Right to Partition
