The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC if it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, and if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Limitation Act, 1963, in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 12th February, 2020 passed by the Additional District Judge-03 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Trial Court) in CIV. DJ NO. 610178/2016, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner (hereinafter `defendant') under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), has been dismissed.

2. The counsels for both sides have been heard on 23rd November, 2021 and 3rd December, 2021 and both the counsels have filed brief written submissions along with judgments in support.

3. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are set out hereinafter:

3.1. The defendant and respondent (hereinafter `plaintiff') are siblings. The suit property belonged to the father of the parties who died intestate on 22nd December, 1995, and the ownership of the suit property delved upon the plaintiff and the defendant, their mother and two more sisters.

3.2. All the aforesaid parties including the plaintiff executed a registered Relinquishment Deed, relinquishing their respective shares in the suit property in favour of the defendant. The registered Relinquishment Deed was executed by the plaintiff on 10th April, 2007 relinquishing her share in the suit property in favour of the defendant.

3.3. On 8th December, 2010, the suit from which the present petition arises was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, seeking reliefs of declaration, possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.

3.4. In the suit, it was averred that there was an oral understanding arrived at between the defendant and plaintiff on 9th April, 2007, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed on 16th September, 2008 between the defendant and the plaintiff as per the aforesaid oral understanding, in terms of which the plaintiff would become the owner of the ground floor of the suit property in lieu of her 1/5th share therein.

3.5. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement and issues were framed in the case on 20th February, 2014.

3.6. On 15th March, 2018, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

3.7. No reply was filed to the said application on behalf of the plaintiff, however, written arguments were submitted.

4. Vide the impugned order dated 12th February, 2020, the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed by the Trial Court, by observing that (i) the application had been filed at a very belated stage when the matter was at the stage of defendant's evidence; (ii) questions raised by the defendant in the application were mixed questions of facts and law and could not be decided in a summary manner without taking evidence; (iii) as per the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) report, the signatures of the defendant on the MoU dated 16th September, 2008 were forged, however, parties had to be given an opportunity to prove/disprove the said report by leading evidence; and (iv) averments with regard to misrepresentation/fraud require evidence to be led and could not be decided at that stage.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the defendant has preferred the present petition. At the very outset, the counsel for the defendant does not press the grounds taken in the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC regarding the findings in the CFSL report and misrepresentation/fraud. He confines his submissions to the following:

(i) The suit is premised on the basis of an unregistered MoU dated 16th September, 2008, which cannot be treated as a family settlement and as such, has not even been claimed to be so in the plaint.

(ii) For the said MoU to be treated as a memorandum of family settlement, there has to be a pre-existing interest of the parties to the MoU in the property in question, which is not the case here, since the plaintiff had already relinquished her entire share in the su