The court emphasized that a plaint must be read meaningfully to determine if it discloses a cause of action, particularly in partition suits regarding ancestral properties.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision is directed against an order dated 15^th March 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, whereby an application preferred by the applicant-defendant no.1 for rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“the Code”) came to be rejected.

2. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under.

2.1 Respondent no.1-plaintiff and respondent nos.2 to 4-defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the daughters of the applicant-defendant no.1.

2.2 Respondent no.1 instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the suit properties asserting that property no. 753 and 752 situated at Dhokawade, Alibag, (suit properties “A” and “B”) and land bearing Survey No. 310 situated at Dhokawade, Alibag (suit property “C”) are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Late Hirachand Shah, the grandfather of the plaintiff, was a big businessman and had business interest in various sectors. Defendant No.1 earned income out of the various ancestral properties which came in the hands of defendant no.1. There were other family properties. However, since the dispute in respect of those joint family properties was pending before the Supreme Court, those properties were not included in the instant suit.

2.3 Defendant nos. 2 to 4, especially defendant no. 2 and her husband, were trying to usurp the properties by misrepresenting or occasionally inducing, enticing and pressurizing the defendant no.1, who, on account of his old age, was not in a position to take informed decisions. The plaintiff had thus demanded partition on 15^th March 2023. As the defendants refused to partition the suit properties, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit.

2.4 Defendant No.1 filed an application for rejection of the Plaint contending, inter alia, that there was no cause of action and the suit was an abuse of process of law and vexatious. The plaintiff has suppressed material facts. Suit properties “A” and “B” are the separate properties of defendant no.1 as those properties were released in favour of defendant no.1 by the brothers of defendant no.1 under a registered Release Deed dated 23^rd November 1973. Property “C” was the self-acquired property of defendant no.1 and it has since been sold by defendant no.1 under a registered Sale Deed in the year 2021 to Mr. Alok Agarwal and Ravikumar Sawalka. The Plaint contains bald assertions that the suit properties are ancestral properties. No clear right to sue for partition qua the suit properties is discernible.

2.5 The application was resisted by the plaintiff.

2.6 The learned Civil Judge, by the impugned order, rejected the application for rejection of the Plaint. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that from the perusal of the Plaint it cannot be inferred that there was no cause of action and the the plaintiff deserved an opportunity to adduce evidence to substantiate her claim that she was entitled to partition of the suit properties.

3. Being aggrieved, the applicant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

4. I have heard Mr. Jay Savla, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, and Mr. R. M. Hardas, learned Counsel for respondent no.1, at some length. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record including the documents tendered on behalf of the applicant.

5. Mr. Savla, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, submitted that the plaint is bereft of the averments which show that the suit properties are the ancestral properties. A solitary and bald assertion that the suit properties are the ancestral properties does not satisfy the requirement of pleading to make out the cause of action. The plaintiff was enjoined to plead and demonstrate as to how the suit properties were the ancestral properties. In the absence of such requisite pleading, the Plaint deserves to be rejected. To lend support to these submissions, Mr. Savla pla