ORDER

This civil revision has been preferred by defendant 6 challenging the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by Principal District Judge, Chhindwara, in civil suit no.08/21 whereby defendant 6's application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of immovable suit property with the allegations that one Shaukatjahan Begum was owner of the suit property who transferred her property to Mujahid Ali by making oral Hiba on 29.07.2014 and thereafter Mujahid Ali made oral Hiba on 02.09.2017 in favour of the plaintiffs. He further submits that Hiba cannot be made by a muslim in favour of non-muslim, therefore, there is no cause of action available to the plaintiffs to institute the suit. In support of his submissions learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the case of R.Sumathi and another vs.

S.

Ramuvel @ Mohamed Abdur Rahim and others SA(MD).No.406/2012 decided by Madras High Court on 27.04.2023 and of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Rajendra Bajoria and others vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others 2021 Supreme(SC) 558. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the civil revision and for rejecting the plaint by allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1-2/plaintiffs supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of civil revision and in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Someshwar vs. Barkat Ullah and others AIR 1963 Allahabad 469 and Ajagar Hazar Saheb and others vs. Chedalavada Annammah and others AIR 1927 Mad 572. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Instant suit has been filed by respondents 1-2/plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of disputed property as described in para 1 of the plaint. It is alleged in the plaint that the suit property belonged to Shaukatjahan Begum, who transferred it to Mujahid Ali by way of oral Hiba on 29.07.2014 and on the basis of another oral Hiba dated 02.09.2017, the plaintiffs are claiming themselves to be owner and in possession of the suit property and also claiming relief of permanent injunction. As such, the plaintiffs have prayed relief of declaration of title as well as the relief of permanent injunction in their favour.

6. Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal and another vs. Axix Bank Limited and another (2019) 7 SCC 158, has held that suit cannot be dismissed in piecemeal.

7. On the basis of oral Hiba, as to whether the plaintiffs have acquired any right or are in possession of the suit property or not is the question which is still required to be considered/adjudicated by trial Court after recording evidence of the parties. Further, as to whether, after dismissal of suit for the relief of declaration, the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction or not, is also a question, which is required to be considered by Court below after recording evidence of the parties.

8. As such, at the present stage of suit, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of non-availability of cause of action.

9. Resultantly, declining interference in the impugned order, this civil revision fails and is dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off. (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb