Granddaughters have a legal right to inherit property, as established in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma.

ORDER

This civil revision, under Section 115 of CPC, has been filed against order dated 11.11.2022 passed by II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambah, District Morena in RCSA No. 39 of 2022, by which application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are respectively granddaughter and daughter-in-law of applicant, have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction as well as for declaration of sale deed executed by the applicant as null and void. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed on multiple grounds i.e.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND (i) no cause of action had arisen for institution of suit; (ii) the suit has not been properly valued; and (iii) proper court fee has not been paid. The trial court by impugned order dated 11.11.2022 has dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that the applicant is father-in-law of respondent No. 2 and grandfather of respondent No. 1/plaintiffs. Father of respondent No.1/ husband of respondent No.2 is still alive and he has been impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the civil suit. During the lifetime of applicant and his son Shyam Singh Tomar / defendant No.2, neither respondent No. 2 Smt. Radha Devi / wife of defendant No. 2 and daughter-in-law of applicant would get any share nor respondent No. 1 / daughter of defendant No.2 and granddaughter of applicant would get any share as her father is still alive. It is submitted that trial Court has not considered the aforesaid aspect and, thus, it is prayed that the order passed by the trial Court be set aside and the plaint may be rejected on the ground that during the lifetime of applicant and Shyam Singh Tomar / defendant No. 2, neither respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 1 would get any share in the property.

4. Per Contra application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is submitted by Shri Raj Shrivastava, Advocate that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma ( AIR 2020 SC 3717 ), granddaughter will have share in the property. Thus, it is clear that trial Court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

6. The trial Court has not considered the relationship of plaintiffs with applicant. According to the applicant, respondent No. 1 and 2 are respectively his granddaughter and daughter-in-law. Father of plaintiff No. 1 Shivani and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND husband of plaintiff No.2 Radha Devi is respondent No.3 Shyam Singh Tomar, who is still alive and has been impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the civil suit. In the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it has been specifically mentioned that during the lifetime of applicant / defendant No. 1, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would not have any share in the property in dispute. However, the trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspect. Whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will have any share in the property in dispute during the lifetime of their father / husband has also not been considered. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that rejection of application merely on the ground that it is a disputed question of fact which can be decided only after recording evidence is misconceived.

7. Accordingly, order dated 11.11.2022 passed by II Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambah, District Morena is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the light of admitted relationship of the parties and then to decide as to whether during the lifetime of applicant as well as during the lifetime of father / husband of respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plai