Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Gau) 737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Smti. Ajanta Choudhury, W/o. Sri Sandeep Choudhury - Petitioner
Versus
Sri Hiten Chandra Das, S/o. Lt. Dhiren Chandra Das Alias Dhirendra Chandra Das & Ors. - Respondents
CRP No. 224 of 2014
Decided On : 21-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Z. Mukit.
For the Respondents: Mr. N. Alam.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it is not to be looked into whether the case has merit but to see whether the bundle of facts pleaded in the plaint discloses any cause of action.

Headnote:
CPC - Challenge to Order rejecting plaint - Section 115, Section 151 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - [CAUSE OF ACTION] - [Sections 15, 16 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC] - The court discussed the application filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the CPC challenging the rejection of the plaint in a Title Suit. The key legal provisions discussed were Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The court emphasized that the purpose of the power to reject a plaint is to prevent meaningless litigation and ensure that a cause of action is disclosed. It also highlighted that the relevant facts for deciding the application are the averments in the plaint and that the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are irrelevant at this stage.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, defendant No. 1 in the Title Suit, filed an application challenging the rejection of the plaint, which was filed for declaration, cancellation of gift deeds, partition, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction. The petitioner argued that the plaint did not disclose any actionable cause and cited Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The respondents countered, stating that the plaint did disclose a cause of action and cited various decisions to support their argument.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the material facts required to show a cause of action were available in the pleading and that the claim of the plaintiffs was based on an alleged mutual understanding involving the entire family. The court emphasized that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it is not to be looked into whether the case has merit but to see whether the bundle of facts pleaded in the plaint discloses any cause of action.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, the relevance of Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the interpretation of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the material facts required to show a cause of action were available in the pleading and that the claim of the plaintiffs was based on an alleged mutual understanding involving the entire family. The court emphasized that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, it is not to be looked into whether the case has merit but to see whether the bundle of facts pleaded in the plaint discloses any cause of action.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the learned trial Court below had rightly passed the impugned order by rejecting the application at that stage. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Z. Mukit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Alam, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 challenging the order dated 25.04.2014 passed in Title Suit No. 17/2014 by the leaned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, whereby the learned Court below did not entertain the prayer of the petitioner to reject the plaint for alleged non-disclosure of any actionable cause.

3. The present petitioner is the defendant No. 1 in the Title Suit No. 17/2014 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The said suit was filed for declaration, cancellation of certain gift deeds, for partition, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

4. It has been stated that a petition was moved by the present petitioner (respondent in the said Title Suit No. 17/2014) under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground there is no adjudicable cause of action against the defendants inasmuch as there was no adjudicable right of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant over the suit properties.

5. It was also contended that there is no material to suggest any kind of relation between plaintiffs and the original land owner. Considering all aspects, the learned trial Court below had came to a conclusion that though the case of the plaintiff is very much remote, however it would not be wise and appropriate to hold that from the plaint no “cause of action” is disclosed and accordingly, such petition was rejected by the learned Court below under its order dated 25.04.2014.

6. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is to be determined looking only and / or taking note of the facts narrated in the plaint only and no other further consideration is required for exercise of such power. It is apparent that the learned trial Court has not dealt with the plaint and very cryptically passed the order and therefore, both the learned counsels has advanced arguments extensively on the pleadings of the plaintiff whether such plaint can be returned on the basis of the of the pleading available in the plaint. In aforesaid view of the matter, now let this Court record the pleaded case of the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff pleaded as follows:-

I. The plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 4 are sons of one late Dhiren Chandra Das from the side of the first wife and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughter and son respectively from the side of the second wife of said Late Dhiren Chandra Das namely Late Labanya Das.

II. The said Late Dhiren Chandra Das was owner and pattadar of a plot of land measuring 3 Kathas and 1.58 Lechas covered by K.P. Patta No. 282 and Dag No. 1155 of Village Sahar – Ulubari Part-1, Mouza- Ulubari situated at Mahadevpur, Rehabari, Guwahati-8.

III. Late Labanya Das who was the mother of the petitioner was an owner and pattadar of a plot of land measuring 6.21 Are covered by K.P. Patta No. 561 and Dage No. 1158 of village Sahar – Ulubari Part - 1, Mouza – Ulubari which is contiguous and adjacent to K.P. Patta No. 282 as described hereinabove. It is contended that the plot of land measuring 6.21 Ares covered by K.P. Patta No. 561 and Dage No. 1158 of village Sahar – Ulubari Part-1, Mouza – Ulubari was purchased by Late Dhiren Chandra Das in the name of Late Labanya Das.

IV. Late Labanya Das sold out a plot of land measuring 4.01 Are, out of the total land measuring 6.21 Ares to one Gayatri Devi. Accordingly, a plot of land measuring 2.20 Ares remained in K.P. Patta No. 561 in the name of Late Labanya Das.

V. It is contended that the said plot of land though purchased in the name of Late Labanya Das, but was purchased by Late Dhiren Chandra Das in the name of Late Labanya Das for betterment in future life of Late Labanya Das.

VI. As Late Dhiren Chandra Das was having apprehension in his mind that there may be some family dispute, he gifted the entire left out property of K.P.