IMPORTANT POINT
A plaint must disclose a clear cause of action; contradictory claims regarding ownership undermine the right to sue, leading to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The Appeal arises out of an order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad in an application made by the respondents/ defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for rejection of the plaint filed in the appellant’s Suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a Suit before the Trial Court for partition of the suit schedule property by allotting 1/3rd share to the appellant and for declaration of the Gift Settlement Deed executed by the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 on 09.12.2022 as null and void. By the impugned order, the defendants’ (respondents herein) application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was allowed and the appellant’s plaint was rejected.

3. A brief explanation of the relevant facts is required to be stated.

4. The appellant/plaintiff is the youngest son, respondent No. 2 is the eldest son and respondent No. 3 is the 2nd son of the respondent No. 1.

5. The appellant filed the Suit - O.S. No. 124 of 2023-against the respondents i.e. the mother and the 2 remaining brothers, for partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of 1/3rd share to the appellant. The appellant also sought for cancellation of a Gift Settlement Deed executed by respondent No. 1/mother in favour of respondent No. 2/eldest son.

6. From section IV of the plaint-“Cause of Action” - the following facts would appear:

6.1. The respondent No. 1/mother executed a Will Deed on 16.08.2022 and cancelled the said Will Deed on 09.12.2022. The respondent No. 1 executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed on the same date i.e. on 09.12.2022 in favour of the respondent No. 2. In December 2022, the appellant requested the respondents to partition the suit schedule property which was refused by the respondents in December 2022. The appellant filed the Suit on 10.03.2023 for the relief as stated above.

7. The respondents filed I.A. No. 1881 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint. The Trial Court allowed the respondents’ application for rejection of plaint, inter alia, on the ground of the appellant having failed to present the relevant facts with regard to the suit schedule property and that the appellant also admitted the right of the respondent No. 1/mother as the owner of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court also found that the plaint lacked a valid cause of action and is barred by law.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant’s father purchased the suit schedule property in the name of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff’s mother) and she executed a registered Will Deed bequeathing the suit schedule property in the name of all the sons including the appellant. Counsel submits that the respondent No. 2/elder son prevailed upon the respondent No. 1 for obtaining the entire suit schedule property which led to cancellation of the Will Deed on 09.12.2022 and execution of the Gift Settlement Deed on the same day by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 2. Counsel also urges that the Suit required a full-fledged trial particularly since the respondent No. 1/mother is only an ostensible owner and not the real owner of the suit schedule property.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/mother submits that respondent No. 1 purchased the suit schedule property under a registered Sale Deed dated 05.11.1988 and that she is the absolute owner of the said property, namely a house which forms the sole property in the plaint schedule. Counsel submits that none of the sons have any legal right to seek partition or allotment of the house property or 1/3rd share thereof since the respondent No. 1 is absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/elder son relies on the settled legal position that only the statements made in the plaint need to be looked at f