Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 522
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dharmesh Sharma, J
RAJNI KHANNA – Appellant
Versus
SIDHARTHAN – Respondent
C.R.P.-352/2023
Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Ms. Barnali Paul, Mr. Ranjan Sharma
A plaint must disclose a cause of action with sufficient material facts; mere assertions are inadequate for legal claims.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - The petitioner challenged the dismissal of her application to reject the plaint, claiming it did not disclose a cause of action. The respondent alleged manipulation of a Gift Deed executed by their mother, who was of unsound mind. The court found the plaint lacked essential facts and dismissed the revision petition, stating that the allegations were insufficient to establish a cause of action. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 6, 16)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that for a plaint to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, it must not disclose a cause of action, which requires a bundle of material facts necessary for the plaintiff's claim. The court reiterated that the test is whether the plaint, taken as a whole, could lead to a decree. (Paras 8, 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner and respondent are siblings. Their mother transferred property to the petitioner via a Gift Deed, which the respondent claims was executed under duress due to her unsound mind. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioner. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, as the allegations were vague and lacked supporting facts. The revision petition was allowed, and the plaint was rejected. (Paras 6, 17)
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action and the validity of the Gift Deed executed by their mother. (Paras 4, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaint's allegations were insufficient to establish a cause of action, emphasizing that mere assertions without material facts do not meet the legal threshold for a valid claim. (Paras 10, 16)
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the plaint was rejected.
1. The petitioner/revisionist, who is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff pending before the learned Trial Court, has preferred the present civil revision petition, assailing the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi1, whereby her application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC2 seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/ plaintiff are siblings, and admittedly their mother was the true and absolute owner of the suit premises. The respondent/plaintiff claims to have enjoyed peaceful possession of the suit premises since the time 1Trial Court 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 their mother purchased it, and acknowledges that the mother transferred her entire share of the suit premises to the petitioner/defendant through a Gift Deed dated 14.02.2020. The mother passed away on 16.03.2021, leaving the petitioner and respondent as her only legal heirs. The respondent/plaintiff alleges that their mother was of unsound mind before her death and it is alleged that the petitioner/defendant manipulated their mother into executing the said Gift Deed in her favour.
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction against the petitioner/defendant in regard to the Flat bearing No. 30-A, Ground Floor, Block – AJ, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi3. It would be apposite to refer to the prayers sought by the respondent/plaintiff: -
- ―a. To pass a decree for declaration against the defendant thereby declaring the Gift Deed dated 14.02.2020 in favour of the defendant as NULL & VOID.
- b. to pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for directing and restraining the defendant, her agent, associates, relatives, representative not ti dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property i.e. FREE HOLD DDA BUILT UP LIG FLAT BEARING NO. 30-A, GROUND FLORR, BLOCK -AJ, SITUATED IN THE LAYOUT PLAN OF SHALIMAR BAGH RESIDENTIAL SCHEME, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI – 110088 and further not to create and third party interest let-out, transfer, sell, mortgage or sale the suit property.
- c. The cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
- d. Any other relief or remedy which this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.‖
3Suit premises
4. The grievance of the petitioner/defendant is that the civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action in his favour and against the petitioner/defendant; and that the Gift Deed dated 14.02.2020 was duly registered on 03.03.2020 by Late Smt. Usha in favour of the petitioner/defendant, which was legal and valid disposition of the subject property in her favour by her mother out of her own free will and volition. Following the execution of the Gift deed, the petitioner/defendant became the sole and exclusive owner of the suit premises, and that the respondent/plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property and rather he has illegally trespassed into the same.
THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
5. The petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on 26.09.2022, which was decided by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.05.2023, wherein the application was dismissed and it would be apposite to refer to the relevant observations in the impugned order, which are as under:
- ―5. The grounds for rejection of plaint very limited. It is asettled law that for the purpose of decision of an application u/o VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court should only consider the plaint and the documents accompanying the plaint and nothing else. The averments of the plaint, without addition or subtraction, without any compartmentalization or dissection, must show that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are attracted. The defence of the de
