The court held that an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must be decided solely based on the averments in the plaint, and disputed questions regarding the character of property as ancestral or self-acquired constitute triable issues requiring a full trial.

ORDER

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1075 of 2021 in O.S.No.136 of 2021, dated 26.04.2022.

2. Petitioners are the petitioners - defendant Nos.2 and 3, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 8 are the respondent Nos.3 to 8 - defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 to 8 in I.A.No.1075 of 2021 in O.S.No.136 of 2021.

3. For the sake of convenience the petitioners will be hereinafter referred to as petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4, respondents Nos.1 and 2 as respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 8 as respondent Nos.3 to 8 – defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 to 8.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4 submits that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which is contrary to law, ought to have seen that the conditions envisaged under the provisions are satisfied and ought to have allowed the application, failed to see that the property has fallen to the share of the father in the year 1968 and that the property succeeded by him is under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, which is a self acquired property, erred in holding that the status of the property in the hands of the father of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs cannot be determined in the application, failed to see that the plea set up by the petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4 for rejection of plaint is on the basis of the interpretation of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and erred in holding that the property fallen to the share of Narsimha Reddy on the death of D.Krishna Reddy is a self acquired property cannot be determined in this application, which is a triable issue, which has to be decided after full-fledged trial is not legal and correct. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others ¹MANU/SC/0265/1986 (ii) Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar ²MANU/SC/0525/1986 (iii) Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh and Others ³MANU/SC/0256/2016 (iv) Uma Devi and Others Vs. Anand Kumar and Others ⁴MANU/SC/0433/2025 (v) Angadi Chandranna Vs. Shankar and Others ⁵MANU/SC/0528/2025.

5. Learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs submits that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective, assigned cogent reasons, dismissed the application filed by the petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4 and no interference is called for. In support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Kuldeep Singh Pathania Vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal ⁶(2017) 5 SCC 345 (ii) Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others ⁷(2020) 9 SCC 1 (iii) Kum.Geetha D/o.Late Krishna and Others Vs. Nanjundaswamy and others ⁸2024 (14) SCC 390 and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

6. Learned counsels on record have filed their written submissions in support of their contentions.

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

POINT:

8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.136 of 2021 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties into 7 equal shares by metes and bounds and to declare the partition deed bearing document No.8287/2005 dated 30.11.2005 executed by and between defendant Nos.2 to 4 (respondent No.4 and petitioners herein) and also the gift settlement deed vide document No.3308/2010 dated 12.08.2010 executed by defendant No.2 (respondent No.4