Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri Venkatalingaiah Murthy, filed a petition for Letters of Administration (P&SC No.63/2011) in respect of the Will of late Sri K. Mohan Murthy dated 29/04/1998. The respondent, Smt. Nalini @ Mala, who is the widow of the deceased, filed a suit for partition (O.S.No.4843/2013) claiming that the Will was not genuine and that she was entitled to a share in the property. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law in view of the pendency of the probate proceeding and that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. The appellant appealed against that order. The High Court considered the issue of whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint. The court noted that the suit for partition was not barred by any law merely because a probate proceeding was pending. The plaint disclosed a cause of action and the suit was maintainable. The court held that the trial court had erred in rejecting the plaint and set aside the order, restoring the suit to its original file. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a), (c) and (d) - Maintainability - The trial court rejected the plaint in a partition suit on the ground that the suit was barred by law in view of the pendency of a probate proceeding and the nature of the Will. The High Court held that the suit for partition was not barred by any law and the plaint disclosed a cause of action. The rejection was set aside and the suit was restored. (Paras 1-10) B) Succession Act - Will - Probate - Letters of Administration - The appellant had filed a petition for Letters of Administration in respect of the Will of the deceased. The respondent filed a suit for partition claiming that the Will was not genuine. The High Court held that the pendency of the probate proceeding does not bar a partition suit and the two proceedings can coexist. (Paras 2-5) C) Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 11 - Scope - The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 must be exercised only when the plaint on its face discloses that the suit is barred by any law or does not disclose a cause of action. The court cannot go beyond the plaint allegations. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a), (c) and (d) of CPC on the ground that the suit for partition was barred by law in view of the pendency of probate proceedings and the nature of the Will.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the XXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.4843/2013 allowing IA No.II filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (c) and (d) is set aside. The suit is restored to the file of the trial court. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint
- Maintainability of Suit
- Letters of Administration
- Will
- Probate
- Partition Suit
- Bar of Suit
- Cause of Action
