In a suit for injunction simpliciter, the court's inquiry under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC is limited to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action based on possession and threat of dispossession, without adjudicating on title or inheritance rights.

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 07.03.2025 PASSED ON IA NO.6 IN OS NO.3369/2021 ON THE FILE OF XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-12)., ALLOWING THE IA NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the appellants - plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.3369/2021, wherein the Trial Court exercising the power conferred on it under Order VII Rule 11(a) has rejected the plaint on the ground that plaintiff has not prima-facie substantiated the cause of action to institute the present suit. The said order is under challenge.

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

Brief facts leading to the case are as under; Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and son respectively of defendant No.1. The present suit is instituted seeking the relief of perpetual injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 5. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the marriage between plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 was solemnized about 25 years ago and that they are blessed with a son and two daughters. The plaint averments further disclose that serious marital discord has arisen between plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 and that multiple litigations are pending inter se between the spouses.

The gist of the plaintiffs’ grievance is the alleged conduct of defendant No.1, who, with the sole intention of harassing the plaintiffs and dispossessing them from the suit schedule property, is stated to have colluded with defendant No.2 and executed a registered sale deed dated 08.12.2020 in favour of defendant No.3. It is contended that on the strength of the said sale deed, defendant Nos.1 to 3, acting in collusion, are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, thereby necessitating the institution of the present suit for injunction.

Defendant No.1, upon service of summons, entered appearance and filed a written statement. Defendant No.1 has also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint averments do not disclose any cause of action.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, notice to the remaining defendants is dispensed with.

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that defendant No.2 had expired even prior to the institution of the suit. The said submission is placed on record.

Upon a careful examination of the plaint averments and the prima facie documents produced along with the plaint, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(ii) What order?

Findings on Point No. i :-

On a holistic reading of the entire plaint averments, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have approached the Civil Court upon a reasonable apprehension of dispossession. The pleadings clearly disclose that defendant No.3, who now asserts to have acquired right and title over the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, from 1st plaintiff ‘s husband is attempting to disturb and interfere with the plaintiffs’ settled possession. The institution of the suit, therefore, cannot be termed as speculative or premature.

The records unmistakably reveal that there exists a serious marital discord between plaintiff No.1 (wife) and defendant No.1 (husband). The plaint averments, particularly in paragraph Nos.7 and 8, elaborately na