IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 877 of 2024 CHOUDHARY MUNNALAL JAIN Versus GEETESH ALIAS JITESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Santosh Anand - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Manoj Jha Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

ORDER The present revision has been filed arising out of the order dated

31.07.2024 passed by the trial court whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. The aforesaid application was filed on various grounds, including on the ground that the plaint as it is filed does not disclose any valid cause of action because the suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partition during the lifetime of their father in the property which even as per the plaintiff assertions is said to be succeeded by their father from their grandfather and a sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 who is father of the plaintiff in favour of the present defendants No. 2 and 3.

3. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs who are brothers and sisters challenging the sale deed executed by their own father-defendant No.1 and also seeking partition of the suit property. The suit has been filed on the assertion that the grandfather of the plaintiff had purchased the land in the name of defendant No. 1 and therefore, though the land in question has been purchased in the name of defendant No.1, but actually it becomes a ancestral property succeeded by defendant No. 1 from his father because the consideration was given by the father of defendant No. 1 as defendant No.1 was minor at the time of execution of sale deed. Hence it should be declared that the land has been succeeded by defendant No. 1 from his father. In other words, the plaintiffs seek declaration that the land was actually owned by the father of defendant No.1, i.e. the grandfather of the plaintiffs and seek to challenge the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants No. 2 and 3.

4. The plaint does not contain a single assertion that the land was coparcenary at any point of time, or that it was so when sale deed was executed by the defendant No.1. There is a simple assertion in the plaint in various paragraphs that the defendant No. 1 be declared to have succeeded the land from his father because the land was purchased by consideration given by his father when the defendant No. 1 was minor. In paragraph 6 of the plaint there is a categorical assertion that the property is property of Hindu undivided family and again in the relief clause the relief has been claimed that it should be declared that this property is of undivided Hindu family and that each of the plaintiffs as well as the defendant No. 1 is having 1/5 share in the suit property and further declaration to declare the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants No. 2 and 3 to be void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

5. The suit has therefore, been filed in the lifetime of father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not the sons and daughters of the pre-deceased son of their grandfather. Even if the plaint assertions are proved in the manner they are written, then it would be declared that the land in question was purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiffs in the name of father of the plaintiffs and the father of the plaintiffs has succeeded the land from the grandfather of the plaintiffs.

6. If the line of succession as per Hindu Succession Act is seen then in the lifetime of their father the plaintiffs could not get any title unless they plead that there was a coparcenary and they have got a birthright in the property. There is not a single word in the entire claim that there is a coparcenary and that they have got a birthright in this property, but there is only a pleading of joint Hindu property.

7. The sole question that arises for determination