Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application was filed by Defendant No.6, a third-party purchaser, challenging the rejection of his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the Trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.1004 of 2022. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and others) seeking partition and injunction in respect of six HUF immovable properties, along with a declaration that a registered Sale Deed dated 20.10.2020 executed between Defendant No.1 (a coparcener) and Defendant No.6 (the applicant) transferring four of the six suit properties was not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 5 belong to the same family, while Defendant No.6 is a third-party purchaser. The suit was filed on 08.12.2021. The plaintiffs contended that the six suit properties are ancestral joint HUF properties belonging to the original ancestor Ranu Mukinda Darekar, who died in 1956, and that partition had not taken place. They alleged that Defendant No.1, as one of the coparceners, alienated four properties to Defendant No.6 without their consent, giving rise to the cause of action. Defendant No.6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action and was barred by limitation. The Trial Court rejected the application, leading to the present revision. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the plaint clearly disclosed a cause of action as the plaintiffs specifically pleaded that the suit properties were ancestral joint HUF properties yet to be partitioned and that the alienation by Defendant No.1 gave rise to the cause of action. The court further held that revenue entries do not create or extinguish rights, and the suit was not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose when the plaintiffs learnt of the alienation in 2020. The court also noted that Defendant Nos.1 to 5 themselves supported the partition claim by filing a written statement and counter-claim seeking partition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint - Cause of Action - Partition Suit - The court held that where the plaint specifically pleads that suit properties are ancestral joint HUF properties yet to be partitioned and that alienation of some properties by one coparcener gave rise to the cause of action, the suit is maintainable and cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Paras 10-11) B) Hindu Law - HUF Property - Partition - Revenue Entries - The court held that revenue entries do not create or extinguish rights of real owners; once it is confirmed that suit properties are ancestral joint HUF properties and partition has not taken place, any alienation by a joint holder gives rise to a cause of action for partition. (Para 12) C) Limitation - Partition Suit - Cause of Action - The court held that the suit is not barred by limitation as the cause of action arose when plaintiffs learnt of the alienation of suit properties by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.6 in 2020, and the suit was filed in 2021. (Paras 6, 8, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint in a partition suit filed by coparceners against a third-party purchaser is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lack of cause of action or being barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the Trial Court's order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The suit was held to be maintainable and not barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Partition Suit
- Cause of Action
- Limitation
- Revenue Entries
- HUF Property
- Sine Qua Non
