1. Appeal against rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a civil suit for declaration, partition, and injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 565
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DEEPAK KHOT, J.
Vepuri Issac - Appellant
Versus
Vepuri Vijay and Others - Respondents
First Appeal No. 35 of 2025
Decided On : 19-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. C. Veda Rao - Advocate with Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel.
For the Respondents:Shri Navaneet Dubey, learned counsel, Shri Alok Kumar Jain – Advocate through Video Conferencing on Caveat., Shri Ravindra Rajput - P.L.
For the Appellant :Ms. C. Veda Rao - Advocate with Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel.
For the Respondents:Shri Navaneet Dubey, learned counsel, Shri Alok Kumar Jain – Advocate through Video Conferencing on Caveat., Shri Ravindra Rajput - P.L.
Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a plaint is rejected only if the averments within the plaint itself fail to disclose a cause of action. The court must not consider the defendant's pleadings or conduct a factual inquiry into the truth of the allegations at this stage.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents relied upon are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement or the application for rejection are irrelevant and cannot be taken into consideration (Paras 19, 20, and 21). A cause of action consists of a bundle of material facts which a plaintiff must prove to entitle them to the reliefs claimed (Paras 24 and 25). If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry into whether the allegations are true in fact at the threshold (Para 23).
(B) Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 vs. Indian Trust Act, 1882 - There is a significant legal distinction between a society and a trust, as they are governed by different statutes. Applying the provisions of the Indian Trust Act to a property alleged in the plaint to have been purchased in the name of an unregistered society constitutes an error of law (Para 10).
(C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - An application filed to elaborate pleadings prior to an application under Order 7 Rule 11 should be considered by the court before deciding on the rejection of the plaint (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
A suit for declaration of title, partition, and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff claiming that a property purchased by the plaintiff's father in the name of an unregistered society devolved equally upon all legal heirs after the father's death. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that since the property was purchased in the name of an unregistered trust (as termed by the court) and the plaintiff had not pleaded trusteeship, no cause of action accrued.
Findings of Court:
The trial court committed a grave error of law by applying the Indian Trust Act, 1882, whereas the plaint specifically referred to an unregistered society. The trial court failed to consider the distinction between a society and a trust and erroneously relied on the defendant's contentions rather than solely on the plaint averments. Furthermore, the trial court decided the application for rejection of the plaint without adjudicating upon a prior pending application for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17.
Issues: Whether the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action or was barred by law such that it warranted rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The test for exercising power under Order 7 Rule 11 is whether the averments in the plaint, taken in their entirety and assumed to be correct, result in a decree. Since the plaintiff asserted a right as a legal heir to property purchased by the father in the name of a society, this constitutes a disputed question of fact that can only be decided after recording evidence and cannot be dismissed as lacking a cause of action at the threshold.
Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the civil court to adjudicate the suit.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
- trusts and societies
- specific relief
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether plaint discloses cause of action – property purchased in name of unregistered society – applicability of Trust Act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Appeal allowed – impugned order set aside – application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejected – matter remitted to trial court. (Para 31 , 32 )
4. What is the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejecting a plaint?
Only the averments in the plaint and documents referred to therein are germane; no other documents or defence can be considered. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
5. Is there a distinction between a society and a trust for the purpose of determining ownership of property?
Yes, a society and a trust are distinct juridical persons governed by different statutes; the Indian Trust Act does not apply to an unregistered society. (Para 10 , 11 , 15 , 16 )
6. When does a plaint disclose a cause of action for the purpose of rejection under Order 7 Rule 11?
If the plaint, read meaningfully, asserts a right to sue and the allegations, if taken as true, would entitle the plaintiff to relief, the plaint cannot be rejected. (Para 27 , 28 )
7. Can the existence of a pending suit by another party be a ground for rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11?
No, a pending previous suit does not constitute res judicata and cannot be a ground for rejection; it may only lead to stay under Section 10 CPC. (Para 30 )
ORDER :
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the XVII District Judge, Jabalpur, in Regular Civil Suit No.668-A/2024, whereby the learned court below allowed the application filed by the respondent no.1/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
2. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the said property was the self acquired property of father of the plaintiff, who purchased the same in the year 2000 and since then the plaintiff is in possession of the said property. It is averred that respondents no. 1 and 2 and respondents no.6 and 7 are real brothers and sisters of the plaintiff whereas respondents no.3 to 5 are legal heirs of Vepuri Jagdish Prasad, who was brother of the appellant/plaintiff and respondents no. 8 to 11 are the purchasers of the suit property. The father of the plaintiff viz. V.J.Sydney died on 12.7.2004 and after his death, the property is equally devolved upon all his legal heirs, i.e. 1/6th share to each LR. In support of his averment, a sale-deed dated 6.3.2000 executed in the name of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India, has been filed to show that father of the plaintiff being President of the said society is the owner of the suit property.
3. However, the learned court below found that the said property is sold in the name of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India, which is not a registered Trust and not in the name of father of the plaintiff. Thus, the court below found that the property in question is not sold to the father of the plaintiff in his personal capacity but it is sold to an unregistered Trust in the name Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India. Since the Trust was unregistered, therefore, the Trustees of the said Trust has right and title over the property in question. Plaintiff has not averred that his father was one of the Trustee of the said unregistered Trust. Thus, the court below found that the appellant/plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit and accordingly rejected the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. Being aggrieved therewith, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that father of the plaintiff got a Society registered in the name ‘The Lutheran Mission of Salvation’ whose registration number is JJ3405/1997. It is submitted that father of the appellant purchased 15,478 sqft. of land by two registered sale- deeds of even date 6.3.2000, which was the self acquired property. It is further contended that father of the plaintiff also got established a Trust in the name of ‘The Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India’ and got both the sale-deeds executed in the name of ‘The Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India’, which is an unregistered society. It is further contended that on 28.2.2018 respondent no.1 being President of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation, applied before the Registrar, Firms and Societies for the sale of said land, which was denied by the Registrar on 30.3.2018. However, name of the said society got mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 28.4.2015 passed by the Tahsildar. It is submitted that despite denial of permission by the Registrar, Firms and Societies, the respondent no.1 executed a sale-agreement in favour of one Anurag Baderia in respect of 7739 sqft. of land on 6.7.2021. It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 filed an application on 1.8.2023 before the SDO for correction of name of the society in the revenue record and vide order dated 18.8.2023 name of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India got deleted and its place 'The Lutheran Mission of Salvation' got mutated.
5. The plaintiff filed civil suit bear
