The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to determine the grounds for rejecting a plaint, including the disclosure of cause of action, valuation of court fees, and jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by defendants No.1 and 2, challenging the Order dated 24.03.2022 in Civil Suit No.18/2021 by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur, whereby and whereunder their application dated 26.02.2021 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of both parties, perused the impugned order and plaint as also relevant documents placed on record.

3. It appears from record that respondent No1-plaintiff Deepak Baid has instituted a civil suit for possession, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction against present petitioners (who are defendants No.1 and 2), claiming his ownership rights in respect of suit property, which is in possession of defendants No.1 and 2 and shown by red colour in the map appended with plaint. Respondents No. 2 to 21 have also been impleaded as party defendants No.3 to 22 alleging that they are tenants in different portions of the suit property, commonly known as ’Gulab Niwas’ situated at M.I. Road, Jaipur. Plaintiff has averred in the plaint that he is natural son of late Sh. Himmat Singh, defendant No.1-Sanjay Baid, is his real brother and defendant No.2-Smt. Jyotsana Baid, is his natural mother. Plaintiff averred that he was adopted by Sh. Champal Lal and ownership of entire property, known as ’Gulab Niwas’ was vested in Sh. Champa Lal Ji. In Para No.2 of the plaint, it has been averred that some parts of ’Gulab Niwas’ came to Champa Lal after death of Sh. Poonam Chand in the year 1923, who happens to be natural father of Champa Lal, according to the law prevailing at that point of time in the Jaipur State. Other parts of ’Gulab Niwas’ was alleged to be purchased by Sh. Champa Lal from Jaipur State, in the year 1946, and thereafter, the Jaipur State also recognized and acknowledged the ownership of Sh. Champa lal over the property of ’Gulab Niwas’ and accorded permission for construction to him. The plaintiff averred that he was adopted by Sh. Champa Lal and his wife Smt. Nirmala Baid, according to hindu rites and later on, an adoption deed dated 06.10.1969 was executed and registered in conformity to adoption. It is averred that in the adoption deed itself, Sh. Champa Lal and Smt. Nirmala Baid declared the plaintiff entitled to their all movable and immovable properties. In Para No.4 of the plaint, plaintiff has given reference of a Will dated 13.02.1969, executed by Sh. Champa Lal and an another Will dated 15.10.1973, executed by Smt. Nirmala Baid, which came in effect after their death. Thus, plaintiff claimed himself to be the sole owner of property of ’Gulba Niwas’, where he is in possession over the part of ’Gulab Niwas’. Plaintiff averred that his natural father Sh. Himmat Singh, natural mother Smt. Jyotsana Baid and brother Sanjay baid were also residing in the ’Gulab Niwas’ being family members and his natural father Sh. Himmat Singh, having his dominating position in the family, kept tenants in the property of ’Gulab Niwas’ and started to receive rent from them. In Para No.5 of the plaint, it is averred that his natural father Sh. Himmat Singh passed away on 25.07.2016.

4. Plaintiff has further averred that prior to filing the present suit, his natural mother Smt. Jyotsana Baid (defendant No.2) under influence of his brother Sanjay Baid (defendant No.1) has instituted another civil suit for possession, mandatory and prohibitory injunction against plaintiff. In that suit, it was disclosed that in relation to property of ’Gulab Niwas’, one partition suit bearing No.68/1969 titled Sanjay Baid Vs. Himmat Singh was instituted, wherein a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 04.02.1970 and a final decree for partition was passed on 29.04.1970. On the basis of final decree dated 29.04.1970, defendant No.2 alleged herself to be the owner of portion of ’Gulab Niwas’, which is in actual