A plaint that is barred by law cannot be amended; thus, it must be rejected outright if it fails to disclose a cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

This Regular First Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.3 dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in O.S.No.88/2018 ('trial Court' for short), rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ('CPC' for short).

2. We have heard Shri. S. Srivatsa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. S Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. B.S Raghuprasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.14 to 17, 27 and 28.

3. The suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule property land bearing Sy.No.28 measuring to an extent of 7 acres 14 guntas situated at Yadavanahalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The plaintiff contended that Agadoorappa and his wife Sakamma had six children. The plaintiff is the son of Thore Sallappa, the eldest of Agadoorappa and Sakamma. It was contended that defendants No.1 to 11 and the plaintiff constitute an Undivided Hindu Family and that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4^th share out of 1/6^th share in suit schedule property and to declare that the sale deeds dated 21.09.1992, 06.02.1995 (8 in number), 13.12.1995 (2 in number) and 02.02.2005 (4 in number) are null and void.

4. The defendants No. 14 to 17, 27 and 28 filed their written statement denying the suit averments and contending that the suit is not maintainable. It was specifically contended that there was already a partition between the six children of the original propositus Agadoorappa by way of compromise decree in O.S.No.244/1990 and that the said decree was suppressed by the plaintiff.

5. An application for rejection of the plaint was also filed by defendants No.14 to 17, 27 and 28 under Order VII Rule 11(a),(c) and (d) read with Section 151 of the CPC. The trial Court after considering the contentions advanced found that the plaintiff was claiming that his father is entitled to 1/6^th share out of the 7 acres 14 guntas of land which he alleged was Joint Family Property. However, it was noticed that in O.S.No.244/1990, a compromise decree was passed by which 'B' schedule property measuring 1 acre 10 guntas was allotted towards the share of Thore Sallappa, father of the plaintiff. It was found that filing the present suit with respect to entire 7 acres and 14 guntas of land as against all the six children of Agadoorappa and by impleading all the subsequent purchasers and challenging more than 15 sale deeds executed by the other children of Agadoorappa is an abuse of process of Court.

6. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another reported in 1977 (4) SCC 467 , the trial Court held that a frivolous and vexatious suit cannot be entertained by the Court. The application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (c) and (d) of the CPC filed by defendants No.14 to 17, 27 and 28 was therefore allowed and the plaint was rejected.

7. The learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that it was taking into account the averments in the written statement filed by the defendants that the plaint came to be rejected and that the order is clearly illegal. It is further contended since the application for amendment was already filed before the orders were passed on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (c) of CPC, the rejection of the plaint was per se impermissible.

8. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Suchit