IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 27 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 217 of 2002 RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA Versus RAMRATAN GUPTA & ORS.

Appearance:

Shri Vikas Sinhal - Advocate for appellant.

None for respondents.

JUDGMENT This first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 27/11/2002 passed by 23rd Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 7A/2001, by which an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and plaint filed by plaintiff/appellant Ramesh Chandra Gupta was rejected.

2. Original plaintiff has died during the pendency of this appeal, and this appeal is being prosecuted by his legal representatives.

3. Original plaintiff Ramesh Chandra Gupta filed a suit for declaration of preferential rights and permanent injunction on the ground that the grandfather of plaintiff, namely Janki Prasad, and his brother Gokul Chandra were in joint ownership and in possession of one house situated in Gospura No. 1, Gwalior. Old number of the house was 174, Ward No. 5, and new number of the building is 8/729 and 8/730. For the time being plaintiff, defendants, and another brother of plaintiff are residing in the said house.

4. Since the controversy revolves in a very narrow compass, therefore, elaborate discussion of facts is not required except that plaintiff had claimed that defendant No. 1 is intending to alienate the house, therefore, preferential right to purchase the house in question was prayed for declaration that the plaintiff has a preferential right to purchase the property in question, and defendant has no right to alienate the house to anybody, and permanent injunction was also sought against the defendants.

5. Since this Court is only required to consider the plaint and documents filed along with plaint, therefore, it is suffice to mention that defendant No. 1 not only denied the plaint averments, but also claimed that plaintiff is not the Class I heir.

6. It appears that defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 01/05/2002 on the ground that plaintiff himself has claimed that he is the son of late Pannalal, whereas defendant is the son of Gokul Chandra. Even if the pedigree shown by the plaintiff is accepted, then in view of Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act he will not have any preferential right, and therefore, it was claimed that since the plaint does not disclose any cause of action therefore it should be rejected.

7. A reply was filed by plaintiff, and it was claimed that defendant No.

1 is the adopted son of Gokul Chandra. Plaintiff has a preferential right, and accordingly, application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint is liable to be rejected.

8. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the plaint by holding that plaintiff is not a Class I heir, and therefore, in view of Section

22 of Hindu Succession Act, he has no preferential right to purchase the property in dispute. It has also been held by the Trial Court that since the rights were devolved upon the parties, i.e., Gokul Chandra and Janki Prasad, prior to 17/06/1956, i.e., the date on which the Hindu Succession Act came into force, therefore, even otherwise Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act would not apply.

9. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that since the appellant is the grandson of Janki Prasad or great grandson of Radhakishan, therefore, he is a coparcener in the property in dispute, therefore, he has a preferential right to purchase the property.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. It is well-established principle of law that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, this Court is only required to consider the plaint averments and the documents filed along with the plaint. The written statement or any other document cannot be taken into consideration. According to the plaintiff, pedigree is as under