A trial court cannot reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. based on inconsistent findings for similar applications and without a comprehensive review of all pleadings and documents; the power must be exercised only when the plaint, read in its entirety, clearly lacks a cause of action.

JUDGMENT

(per the Hon’ble Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)

1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) assailing the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge at Bhuvanagiri in I.A.No.427 of 2023 in O.S.No.124 of 2019, dated 12.09.2025.

2. Appellants are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs. Respondent No.1 is the petitioner – defendant No.1 in I.A.No.427 of 2023 in O.S.No.124 of 2019.

3. It is mentioned in the cause title of the appeal that respondent Nos.2 to 45 are not necessary parties to the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants – respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs submits that the learned Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit for partition is not maintainable and that the learned Trial Court failed to see that by virtue of compromise decree in O.S.No.386 of 1990, dated 28.02.1991 among the brothers and father of respondent No.1 – petitioner – defendant No.1, ‘E’ schedule properties therein were allotted to him, which remained as joint family property, wherein the appellants – respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs have share. The reasoning of the learned Trial Court that on partition it became self acquired property of respondent No.1 – petitioner – defendant No.1 is erroneous. The learned Trial Court having dismissed I.A.No.275 of 2024 on the ground that there is a cause of action for filing the suit and also that the suit is not barred by limitation, erred in allowing I.A.No.427 of 2023. The learned Trial Court failed to see that the right claimed in suit is by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005 and the lack of expression ‘coparcener’ in the plaint does not in any way affect the rights of the appellants – respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs for partition.

5. To substantiate his contention learned counsel has relied on the decision in the case of Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and Others ¹(2018) 7 SCC 646 and prayed to allow the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – petitioner – defendant No.1 submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly observed in the order that the appellants – respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs did not file any document to show that the schedule properties were acquired by respondent No.1 – petitioner – defendant No.1 from the sale proceeds of ancestral properties situated at Thattikhana village, Abdullapurpet Mandal. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that the suit filed by the appellants – respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and Others ²MANU/SC/0034/1977 (ii) Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh and Others³MANU/SC/0256/2016 (iii) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors⁴MANU/SC/0508/2020, (iv) Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. ⁵MANU/SC/0582/2020, (v) Angadi Chandranna vs. Shankar and Others⁶MANU/SC/0528/2025 (vi) S.Sampoornam Vs. C.K.Shanmugam and Others⁷MANU/TN/2426/2022

6. (vii) Nachiketa Kantibhai Patel and Others Vs. Kantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel and Others⁸MANU/GJ/1186/2025 and prayed to dismiss the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants – respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs has filed synopsis and learned counsel for respondent No.1 – petitioner – defendant No.1 has given list of dates.

7. Now the point for consideration is: whether the order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court?

8. Appellants - respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs have filed suit under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of CPC against the respondents – defendants to pass a preliminary decree declaring the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as