The court affirmed that the existence of a cause of action must be determined from the plaint's averments, and issues regarding property nature and necessary parties are triable matters.

ORDER :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC” hereinafter) has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking setting aside of the order dated 25th January, 2024, ('impugned order' hereinafter), passed by the learned Civil Judge- N/W District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ no.1318/2019.

2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the instant revision petition are as follow:

a. The family chart defining the relation among the parties is as under:

b. The minor respondent herein/plainitff, through his mother, filed the aforesaid civil suit for declaration against all the petitioners/defendants seeking declaration of the suit properties as Joint Hindu Undivided Coparcenery Ancestral family properties with further declaring the plaintiff as a coparcener-cp-owner in the said suit properties. Vide the said suit, it has also been prayed that a decree of declaration be passed against the defendants/petitioners herein, thereby, declaring the agreement to sell dated 9th January, 1987 and conveyance deed dated 12th May, 2000 as null and void. The details of the suit property as per the record are as follows:

c. In the aforesaid civil suit, the petitioners herein filed applications for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 25th January, 2024.

d. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the same.

3. Mr. Pawan Bindra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the arguments and contentions made in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC while passing the impugned order, and thus, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court erred by not appreciating that the estate of the petitioners stood apportioned, divided and devolved upon the respective coparceners and thus, the estate ipso-facto changed the alleged character from ancestral/Hindu Undivided Family property to personal and self-owned property of the coparceners due to which the plaint of the respondent is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and the same is apparent from the bare reading of paragraph no. 6 of the plaint where the respondent has categorically stated that the properties were inherited and represented by the sons in equal share.

5. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the respondent had not substantiated the allegations regarding the suit properties being ancestral/Hindu Undivided Family with any material evidence and thus, the plaint is vexatious.

6. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court further failed to take into consideration the fact that plaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and thus, the same is bad in law as the allegations made in the said plaint is that the suit properties are ancestral properties, and therefore, other coparceners were mandatorily required to be impleaded.

7. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in holding that the estate was put in common hotchpotch prior to the year 1956, though there is no material on record to buttress the same, thereby, barring the only self-serving statement of the respondent in its plaint. The learned Trial court further erred in holding that the non-joinder of the necessary party is not covered by the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which is perverse and baseless and the provision of Order 1 Rule 9 of the CPC specifically bars a suit bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

8. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating that the plaint is barred by the law and erroneously held that the respondent is seeking the declaratory decree and praying for consequential relief, hence the court fee paid by the respondent is in a