JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Both the Revision Applications are filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hingna on application below Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 14 respectively dated 03/01/2022 thereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were came to be rejected. As similar facts and question involved in both the Revisions Application, Civil Revision Application No.21/2022 is taken up as lead application.

3. The facts in brief are as under: The non-applicant i.e. original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Suit No.01/2021 on 01/01/2021. The present applicant filed application below Exhibit 11 on 18/02/2021 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the cra 21-2022.odt 3/13 plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law and plaint does not disclose a cause of action to file the suit. The non-applicant filed his reply. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court pleased to reject the application below Exhibit 11. The plaintiff has filed suit against defendant for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of will deed dated 25/04/2016. The plaintiff is the son of real brother of the applicant-defendant. It is pleaded in the plaint itself that the mother of plaintiff has acquired the suit field situated at Mouza Wanadongari, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur from her parents through Court order in the year 1989. Mother of the applicant has executed the registered will deed in respect of the suit field on 25/04/2016 registered with Sub-Registrar, Nagpur. As per the said will deed, mother of the applicant, Smt. Laxmibai Bhagwanji Ingle has bequeathed the entire suit field to the applicant. Mother of applicant expired on 23/03/2017. He came to know about the execution of the referred will deed by the plaintiff’s mother in favour of the present applicant/defendant on 16/06/2019. The plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of the will deed, declaration regarding co-owner in the suit property and permanent injunction declaring that the present cra 21-2022.odt 4/13 applicant/defendant has no right to sale or to create third party interest in respect of the suit property. In view of these facts, the applicant preferred application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint below Exhibit 11.

4. It is contended by learned Counsel for applicant that the learned Trial Court has not even referred the judgment mentioned at Serial Nos. 3 to 5 and without considering the same, decided the said application on wrong footings. In view of the specific statement in the plaint that the land was acquired by mother of plaintiff from her parents through Court Order, it has become absolute property of her. Thus, in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Laxmibai Bhagwanji Ingle has became an absolute and full owner of the suit property and as such, she is having an authority to bequeath the same to anyone. She has bequeath the same to her son due to natural love and affection. The plaintiff cannot claim ownership as co-owner. The entire plaint is silent how the cause of action arose to challenge the said will deed. This main aspects is not considered by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are no allegation cra 21-2022.odt 5/13 against the present defendant in respect of execution of the will deed. There are no averments of any sort that will deed is executed by fraud misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence. In absence of