A plaint must disclose a cause of action and valid legal rights; failure to do so, coupled with non-payment of proper court fees, leads to dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. 18907/2022 (filed on behalf of defendant Nos.11 to 14 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC)

1. The present application is filed by defendants no. 11 to 14, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds, being, non-disclosure of cause of action, non-payment of sufficient court fees, and the suit being barred by limitation.

Factual Matrix

2. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff, claiming to be a co-sharer in the property bearing Khasra No.1789(old), 1460(new) situated at Revenue Estate of Village Mehrauli, Tehsil Haus Khas, New Delhi- 110030, for declaration that a series of documents alleged to have been illegally executed in respect of the suit property by some of the defendants herein, are null and void. The plaintiff has also sought consequential reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.

3. The plaintiff claims that he is a co-owner of the suit property, by virtue of two relinquishment deeds executed in his favour; one dated 22.09.2008, executed by Shri Yogesh Sharma, Smt. Ritu Gaur (alias Nitu Sharma), and Ms. Neha Sharma; and the other dated 24.09.2008, executed by one Smt. Shanti Devi (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the relinquishment deeds). By virtue of the relinquishment deeds, the plaintiff claims ownership of 5/27^th of the suit property.

4. The plaintiff further claims that defendants no. 5 to 7 are co-owners of the suit property, having a collective share of 3/27^th of the suit property. However, he claims that defendants no. 5 and 7, executed General Power of Attorney dated 20.09.2013 in favour of defendant no. 15 in respect, not only of their share in the suit property, but also the share of the plaintiff. Subsequent to the same, a series of documents came to be executed by some of the defendants arrayed in the present suit in respect of the said land.

5. The plaintiff claims that he became aware of the documents impugned herein, only upon examining the records in a partition suit in respect of the suit property, bearing no. CS (OS) 3080/ 2020, and that immediately thereafter, he has instituted the present suit challenging the same.

Submissions

6. Learned counsel for the applicant-defendants made the following broad submissions:

6.1. That the relinquishment deeds on which the plaintiff rests his claim of being a co-owner of the suit property, do not confer any such title on him. Under the relinquishment deeds, the alleged shares of the releasers in Khasra No. 1475 (new) and 1789 (old) are relinquished in favour of the plaintiff, whereas, the suit property bears Khasra No. 1460 (new) and 1789 (old).

6.2. That a report of the SDM, Mehrauli (hereinafter referred to as Document No. 7) contradicts the plaintiff’s claim of having a right over the suit property. In the said report, the suit land is said to be owned by one Shri Suran Narayan, and defendants no. 5 and 7 are said to be in possession of the same, none of whom have released any right over the same to the plaintiff.

6.3. That the plaint does not contain any averment describing how the suit property devolved on the persons who relinquished their alleged shares in the suit property to the plaintiff. Such bald pleadings are contrary to the mandate under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC, wherein, the plaintiff is mandated to disclose all the material facts, in the plaint.

6.4. That the suit is barred by limitation, as the limitation period for challenging the documents which are sought to be declared as null and void