Hon'ble AGARWAL, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.7.2010 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.10/2005 whereby the learned trial Court by allowing an application filed under Order 7 Ruloe 11 CPC has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents in the Court below with the averment that the land in dispute bearing Khasra No.389/1/1 measuring 17 biswa was orally gifted/donated by the khatedars of that land namely; Shri Godu and Shri Bhura for the purpose of construction of a temple to Maharaj Shree Ram Kripal Das Ji in the year 1984 and a temple came to be constructed on that land in the year 1985 and thereafter the appellnat-trust was formed and the land in dispute with temple on it and some other land of Maharaj Shree Ram Kripal Das Ji was entrusted to the appellant. It was also averred that from the year 1994 the appellant is in possession of the land in dispute but the respondents only by the reason that in revenue record their names stand recorded as khatedar-tenant, illegally and without any legal right are interfering in the possession of the land and they intend to transfer the land in dispute to some other persons. It was also averred in the plaint that since the year 1984, the land in dispute has not been used for agriculture purpose and after the construction of a temple on it, it has come within the 'Abadi' and the appellant is entitled to seek a declaration that the land in dispute is in the ownership of it. It was prayed that the land in dispute comprising in Khasra No.389/1/1 be declared in the ownership of the appellant and defendant-respondents be restrained by way of permanent injunction not to transfer it to any other person and to refrain themselves from interfering in the possession of the appellant.

3. The respondents filed written statement and it was denied that their predecessors in title ever transferred or gifted the land in dispute to Maharaj Shree Ram Kripal Das Ji, although it was admitted by them that on a part of the land, a temple has been constructed. It is the case of the respondents that the temple was constructed with the help of the villagers.

4. The defendant-respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating therein that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and it has no right to file the present suit and it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed. A written reply was filed to the application and the learned trial Court after hearing the respective parties, allowed that application and by passing the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant is before this Court by way of this appeal.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds:-

(i) According to clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, it is to be seen whether plaint discloses a cause of action or not and a plaint can be rejected only when the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and under this provision it cannot be considered that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the plaintiff whereas in the present case, the trial Court has dismissed the suit by arriving at a conclusion that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the appellant. It was further submitted that for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only the averments made in the plaint are relevant and if by a meaningful reading of the entire plaint it is revealed that the plaint discloses a cause of action, the same cannot be rejected.

(ii) The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit also on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it even no such ground was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document