A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is manifestly vexatious, does not disclose a clear right to sue, and is barred by limitation, particularly when the plaintiff does not seek possession of the property in question.

JUDGMENT

1. This first appeal is filed under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') by the Plaintiffs challenging the order dtd. 22/4/2006 passed on IA.13 in OS No.2397/2005 by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'), whereby the plaint has been rejected.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiffs filed OS No.2397/2005 contending, inter alia that they are the children and grand children of late D.Lakshmana Das @ Kali s/o late Durgaiah and all the members of the family of late D.Lakshmana Das constituted a Hindu Undivided Joint Family. That the said Sri.D.Lakshmana Das owned various properties, one of which was Sy.No.67 of Thooberahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 9 acres 4 guntas, (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") having purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed on 30/10/1922 and that the revenue records of the said property stands in his name. That OS.No.88/72 was filed by D.L.Ramaswamy s/o Lakshmana Das from his first wife against the children of D.Lakshmana Das born to his second wife, which suit was decreed on 3/1/1979 holding that said D.L.Ramaswamy was entitled to 13/84th share in the suit property. That OS No.3853/1991, was filed by one Smt.Vaikundamma seeking 1/6th share out of the share of one of the co-sharers who was allotted 13/84th share in OS.No.88/72, which suit was dismissed for default. It is further contended by the Plaintiffs that various transactions have taken place behind the back of the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 8 have played fraud and alienated the suit properties. Hence the suit was filed seeking for the following reliefs:

a) For a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the agricultural land mentioned in the schedule to the plaint;

b) For a declaration that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant dtd. 14/9/1995 registered as document No.4956/95-96 before the Sub-Registrar Bangalore South Taluk is a fraudulent document and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs;

c) For a declaration that the subsequent sale deeds executed interse between second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh defendants as well as sale deed executed by the 4th defendant in favour of the 6th defendant are fraudulent transactions and the same are not binding on the plaintiffs in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaintiffs;

d) For a declaration that the conversion orders dtd. 26/3/1999 as well as 23/10/2003 obtained by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in respect of the agricultural land owned and possessed by the plaintiffs are not binding on the plaintiffs and the same are the result of the fraud played by the Revenue authorities;

e) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 8 as well as 21st to 30th in alienating of any way creating any charge over the property or any portion there of in any manner morefully described in the schedule to the plaint;

f) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant 12 to 20 from issuing any no objection certificates, release order, katha certificate or any certificates affecting the right of the plaintiffs with regard to the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint;

g) For costs and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court might deem meet."

4. The Defendant No.8 filed IA.13 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC to reject the plaint. The Plaintiffs filed their objections to the said IA. The Trial Court, vide order dtd. 22/4/2006 allowed the said IA and rejected the plaint by recording, inter-alia, the following findings:

i) The plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear right to sue;

ii) It is pleaded at paragraph 20 of the plaint that right to sue first accrued on 14/9/1995 and the suit is instituted on 11/10/2005 i.e., af