Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.M.Panchal, M.C.PATEL
MANVENDRASINHJI R.JADEJA - Appellant
Versus
RAJMATA VUAYKUNVERBA - Respondent
C.A. 1526 of 1997
Decided On : 09/16/1998
In order to find out whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not, the averments made in the plaint and documents annexed thereto should be scrutinised meaningfully and if on such scrutiny it is found that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, it has got to be rejected in view of the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the CPC. When it is said that the Court should take into consideration the averments made in the plaint for the purpose of deciding the question whether the averments made in the plaint disclose cause of action or not, it does not mean that the Court is precluded from applying the statutory provisions or case-law to the averments made in the plaint. If an assertion made in the plaint is contrary to statutory law or case-law, it cannot be considered as disclosing cause of action.
[Para 13]
It is the duty of the Court to reject the plaint which does not disclose cause of action. If a plaint can be rejected at threshold of the proceedings, we do not see any reason as to why it cannot be rejected at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. Even if after framing of issues, the basic defect in the plaint persists, namely, absence of cause of action, it is always open to the contesting defendants to insist that the plaint be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC and the Court would be acting within its jurisdiction in considering such a plea. Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC does not place any restriction or limitation on the exercise of the Courts power. It does not either expressly or by necessary implication provide that power under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC should be exercised at a particular stage only.
[Para 14]
(b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11(a) - Rejection of plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action - Scope of finding as to - Whole case of appellant is based on rule of primogeniture - Therefore to find out whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not finding whether rule of primogeniture still subsists or not necessary - In that process Court shall have to apply the statutory law as well as case law to the facts pleaded in the plaint to ascertain whether any cause of action is disclosed - It can not be termed as going to merits of the case - Once Supreme Court has held in case Pratapsinhji N. Desai vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-III, 1983 Vol. 139 ITR 77 that rule of primogeniture stand abrogated after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the plaint based solely on principle of primogeniture discloses a cause of action - Plaint is therefore rightly rejected.
In our view, considering the question whether rule of primogeniture has ceased to apply or not cannot be termed as going into the merits of the case at all. On careful scrutiny of the plaint, it becomes evident that the whole case of the appellant in the plaint is based on the footing that deceased Mayurdhvajsinhji having expired intestate, the appellant is entitled to inherit all the properties left by him under the rule of primogeniture. Therefore, in order to find out whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not, it becomes relevant to consider whether the rule of primogeniture still subsists or not. In fact, rule of primogeniture is the sole and entire basis of the plaint and therefore if the Court addresses itself to the question whether the said rule of primogeniture subsists or not, it cannot be said that the Court is deciding the matter on merits. As observed earlier, while deciding application filed under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the CPC, the Court has to apply the statutory law as well as case-law to the facts pleaded in the plaint and find out whether any cause of action is disclosed or not. If such an attempt is made, it can hardly be said that merits of the case are taken into consideration while deciding application for rejection of the plaint as not disclosing any cause of action.
[Para 18]
Having regard to the averments made in the plaint and the covenant which is produced by the appellant with the plaint, we find that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. Once the Supreme Court has decided that rule of primogeniture stands abrogated after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it cannot be said that the plaint based solely on the principle of primogeniture discloses a cause of action. The plaint, therefore, is rightly rejected under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the CPC. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge so as to warrant interference in the present appeal. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
[Para 23]
(c) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Secs. 4(1)(a) & 5 - Provision under - Providing overriding effect of the Act - A bare perusal would indicate that any custom or usage like primogeniture as part of Hindu Law in force shall cease to have effect after enforcement of the Act - Sec. 5 stands exception to Sec. 4 which apply to any State which decends to a single heir as indicated.
A bare perusal of Sec. 4 would indicate that any custom or usage as part of Hindu Law in force will cease to have effect after the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act with respect to any matter for which provision is made in the Act. If rule of lineal primogeniture in estate left by deceased Mahendrasinhji is a customary one, it will certainly cease to have effect. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo vs. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo & Ors., AIR 1981 SC, 1937. Section 5 of the said Act stands as an exception to Sec. 4 of the Act referred to above and inter alia provides that the said Act will not apply to any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act.
[Para 19]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasized that to determine whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, it is necessary to scrutinize the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto meaningfully. If the scrutiny reveals that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, it must be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) [Para 13][Para 14].
The court clarified that while examining the cause of action, the court is not precluded from applying statutory provisions or case law to the averments in the plaint. If any averment contradicts statutory law or case law, it cannot be considered as disclosing a cause of action [Para 13].
The exercise of rejecting a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(a) can be undertaken at any stage of the proceedings, even after issues have been framed, and even if evidence has been led. The provisions do not restrict the timing of such rejection [Para 13].
The court highlighted that the primary basis of the plaint in this case was the rule of primogeniture. Since the rule of primogeniture has been held to be abrogated by the relevant law, the plaint based solely on that rule does not disclose a cause of action [Para 18][Para 23].
The court noted that the law applicable to succession has undergone significant changes, particularly with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, which overrides customary laws like primogeniture, unless specific exceptions apply. In this case, the law and case law establish that such customary rules have ceased to have effect [Para 19][Para 20].
The court observed that the relevant covenants and agreements entered into by the rulers of Indian states, including Morvi, do not guarantee the continued application of primogeniture for all estates. Instead, they primarily guarantee succession to the throne or specific titles, not necessarily to all property or estates [Para 21].
The court reaffirmed that the abrogation of traditional succession rules, such as primogeniture, has been clearly established through statutory law and judicial interpretation, rendering claims based solely on such rules invalid for establishing a cause of action [Para 22][Para 23].
Ultimately, the court upheld the rejection of the plaint, concluding that since the rule of primogeniture is no longer applicable, the plaint based on that principle does not disclose a cause of action. Therefore, the rejection under Order 7, Rule 11(a) was justified, and the appeal was dismissed [Para 23][Para 24].
The court also clarified that the exercise of statutory and legal principles in such cases is permissible at any stage of the proceedings and does not amount to deciding the case on merits when only the question of the cause of action is under consideration [Para 13][Para 14].
The overall legal principle reinforced is that laws enacted to govern succession override customary laws, and claims based on outdated or abrogated customs cannot sustain a cause of action in a court of law.
( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case, and further observed :
( 2 ) THIS appeal, which is filed under Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. 1908 ("c. P. C. " for short), is directed against the judgment and order dated 1/02/1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D. ). Morvi. in Jurisdiction Suit No, 46 of 1978 by which the plaint is rejected under Order 7, Rule 1 l (a) of the C. P. C. as not disclosing cause of action. The said order is deemed to be a decree, as defined in Sec. 2 (2) of the C. P. C.
( 3 ) APPELLANT is the original plaintiff. The appellant instituted suit claiming to be the sole heir and successor of Shri Maharaja Mayurdhvajsinhji Mahendrasinhji of Morvi. who died in testate on 22/08/1978. Since the issue raised in the appeal will have to be decided with reference to the averments made in the plaint, it would be relevant to notice, in brief, the claim advanced by the appellant in the plaint on a reference to ara 2 of the plain the genealogy of the contestants
( 4 ) THE appellant claims to be the sole heir and successor to the estate of late shri Mayurdhvajsinhji Mahendrasinhji in accordance with law and custom governing the succession, i. e. , rule of primogeniture under which the senior most male survivor in the senior most line from the original common ancestor is entitled to inherit the properties. The pedigree in para 2 of the plaint shows that late Mayurdhvajsinhji belonged to the branch of Ravajis son Waghji. From the plaint, it is evident that mayurdhvajsinhji was survived by the defendant, who is his mother. The appellants case in para 3 of the plaint is that right from the inception of the State of Morvi, there has been established a uniformly followed custom in Morvi whereby the succession to the estate is governed by the rule of primogeniture under which the eldest son of the deceased, and failing a direct male issue, the senior most male member of the senior most branch of the common ancestor of the deceased, succeeds as sole heir to the entire estate of the deceased. In para 4 of the plaint, the appellant has given instances as to how rule of primogeniture was followed from time of kayaji (1698-1734 ). The appellant has averred in para 4a of the plaint that when late His Highness Ravaji expired in or about 1870 A. D. , he was survived by his widow and two sons and his eldest son Waghji succeeded to the entire estate, to the exclusion of all other relations of the deceased. In para 5 of the plaint, it is stated that when Waghji died on 11-6-1922, his son Lakhdhirji succeeded to the estate. As stated in para 6 of the plaint, the then Ruler of Morvi Lakhdhirji abdicated gadi in favour of his son Mahendrasinhji, who was husband of the defendant, on 21/01/1948. In paras 7 and 8 of the plaint, it is claimed that His Highness mahendrasinhji passed away on 18-8-1957 and his eldest son Mayurdhvajsinhji succeeded to entire estate but as Mayurdhvajsinhji expired intestate on 22/08/1978, the appellant is entitled to inherit all the estate left by the deceased under the rule of primogeniture.
( 5 ) FROM the other averments made in the plaint, it transpires that the State of morvi was a sovereign State subject only to the paramountcy of the British Crown. The Ruler was the supreme legislature, the supreme judiciary and the supreme head of the executive. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 came into force on 15/08/1947 under which the paramountcy of the British Crown lapsed and Morvi became a fully independent sovereign State. In para 12 of the plaint, the appellant has referred to the covenant for the formation of the United States of Kathiawar entered into by the Rulers of certain States including Ruler of Morvi in what was then known as Kathiawar for the formation of the United States of Kathiawar and the covenant had concurrence and guarantee of the Government of India. What is highlighted in this para is that Mayurdhvajsinhji having expired on 22/08/1978, his estate descen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
