IMPORTANT POINT
A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it fails to disclose a valid cause of action, particularly when previous court decisions negate the claims made.

ORDER :

(Hemant Chandangoudar, J.)

This petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed challenging the order dated 06th January, 2018 passed on IA.16 in Original Suit No.1 of 2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shidlaghatta, rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The respondents 1 to 6 herein have filed the suit in Original Suit No.1 of 2010 seeking the following reliefs:

(1) To declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner in peaceful, lawful, physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having all right, title, interest and possession over the same;

(ii) To declare that the registered sale deed dated. 10.09.2007 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 which is registered in the office of Sub-Register, Siddlaghatta vide Document No.1566/2007-08 is binding on the plaintiffs as the same is collusive one and the defendant No 1 dose not derive any right, title, interest much less possession over the suit property and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs;

(iii) To restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful, lawful physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property either by himself or by his family members, G.P.A. holders, agents or any other person's claiming any right under or through him by granting permanent injunction;

(iv) To restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third parties either by himself or by his family members, G.P.A. holders, agents or any other person/s claiming any right under or through him by granting permanent injunction;

(v) To direct the defendants to pay cost of the suit;

(vi) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deeds fit the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

3. The petitioners-defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint stating that the plaintiffs are claiming ownership on the basis of the adoption deed, which has already been negated by the jurisdictional Civil Court in Original Suit No.46 of 1993 and O.S.No.90/1960, and the same has attained finality. The plaintiffs filed objections to the said application. The Trial Court dismissed the application stating that the material available on record, prima facie, established that the plaintiffs' father was declared as adopted son of Chikkabasappa and Nanjamma in OS No.90/1960, and OS No.46/1993, the suit was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs' father was not the adopted son of Chikkabasappa and Nanjamma. Therefore, there is a dispute with regard to the question of facts and law, and that can be decided only after trial.

4. Sri Gurudas Kannur, the learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioners, argued that in RA No.116/1963, the First Appellate Court modified the decree passed in OS No.90/1960, holding that the father of the plaintiffs was not the adopted son of late Chikkabasappa. He further argues that in OS No.46/1993, filed by the deceased father of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court held that the deceased father of the plaintiffs failed to prove that he was the adopted son of Chikkabasappa as per the adoption deed dated 16.05.1946, executed by Smt.Nanjamma as per the desire of her husband. Therefore, the present suit filed to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, having inherited the suit property from Appajappa, who succeeded to the suit property as the adopted son of Chikkabasappa and Nanjamma, is manifestly vexatious and merit less without disclosing a clear right to sue, and therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected.

5. In support, reliance is placed on the following decisions:

1. T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and another reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467.

2. A.E.Rathina Naicker Vs. V.Thirumalai, reported in LAWS (MAD) 2017-3-77.

3. Asha Khanna And Others Vs. Pankaj Khanna & Others, reported in LAWS (DLH)-2015-1-