IMPORTANT POINTS
Application for rejection of plaint even when pleadings are not complete is misconceived.
High Court ought not observe on key issue when trial is yet to be taken up.

Judgment

Chelameswar, J.

1. The instant special leave petition is filed by two unsuccessful petitioners before the High Court of Madras in CRP (PD) No.3342 of 2012 aggrieved by a final order dated 15.11.2012 passed therein.

2. The petitioners herein are defendant nos.2 and 3 respectively in Original Suit No.300 of 2011 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Coimbatore. The said suit was filed by the first respondent herein. She is the daughter of 2nd respondent herein. The suit was filed with the prayer as follows:

“a) for partitioning of the properties more fully described in the schedule hereunder and allot ½ share to the plaintiff.

b) directing the defendants to pay plaintiff the cost;

c) granting to the plaintiff such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.”

Such a prayer is based upon the pleading that the suit scheduled property originally belonged to one Shri S. Somanathan, the grandfather of the plaintiff who according to the plaint died intestate on 16.08.1981. The relevant portion of the plaint reads as follows:

“The suit properties more fully described hereunder in the schedule belongs to Late Somanathan vide document bearing Registration No.1072/1972 dated 20.03.1972. He died intestate on 16.08.1981. On his death, the properties devolve upon his legal heirs including the 1st defendant. Subsequently, the properties were partitioned to metes and bounds between the legal heirs vide Partition Deed bearing Registration No.2435/1982, dated 05.06.1982 in the Office of the District Registrar, Coimbatore. The 1st defendant being one of the son of Late Somanathan the Schedule hereunder.”

3. According to the plaintiff, the 1st petitioner herein is the “erstwhile power of attorney” of the father of the plaintiff. The other defendants no.3 to 8 are the “alleged purchasers of a part of the suit property from the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant”. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and her father constituted a Hindu Undivided Family and the suit property is ancestral property in the hands of the 1st defendant. The relevant portion of the plaint reads as follows:

“The suit property is an ancestral property in the hands of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant being the Kartha of the Hindu Undivided Family was looking after the same. He is having only the right to manage the properties. The properties mentioned in the schedule were enjoyed by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant jointly. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the co-owners in the suit property. There is no partition between the plaintiff and is not having any right to alienate the same without the consent and concurrence of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant and the plaintiff are having ½ undivided share each in the suit property, being the coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family.”

4. In the background of the abovementioned pleading, the plaintiff made a further allegation that –

“Upon enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the sale of a part of the suit property to the defendants 3 to 8 are collusive transactions without any consideration. The price quoted in the sale deeds are imaginary and very low. The market value of the property is much more than what is mentioned as price in the sale deeds. The 3rd to 8th defendants are not bonafide purchasers for good consideration. The alleged sale transactions are fraudulent and designed to defeat the right of the plaintiff. The alleged transactions were neither in good faith nor for valuable consideration. All the above said sale deeds will not bind the plaintiff in any manner. Hence the plaintiff is ignoring the same.”

5. Having made such an allegation, the plaintiff never gave any description or any details of the sale transaction/s entered into between the 1st petitioner and the other alleged purchasers of the part of the suit scheduled property through the 2nd petitioner herein. More interestingly no relief is sought in t