Back
BIREN VAISHNAV, NISHA M. THAKORE
Khimjibhai Hirabhai Baraiya – Appellant
Versus
Suyash Infracon – Respondent
ORDER :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This first appeal filed under Sec.96 r/w. Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises out of the judgement and order dated 17.09.2022, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2021. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2021 with the plaint stating the following facts:
1.1 The subject matter of the suit was land at village Kudasan, District: Gandhinagar of Block Survey No.120 (Old Survey No.117). The total area of the land was 14,302 sq.mtrs. Of the 14,302 sq.mtrs of land, 2,864 sq.mtrs was acquired for the purposes of laying a road leaving a total area of 11,168 sq.mtrs.
1.2 It was the case of the plaintiff that the land admeasuring 14,032/- sq.mtrs was originally owned by two co-owners, Jetha Vala and Kachra Mula. Both held 7,016 sq.mtrs each, i.e. half the share of the total of 14,032 sq.mtrs. From the total joint land holding 2,864 sq.mtrs having been acquired, the shareholding of Jetha Vala and Kachra Mula was reduced to 5,584 sq.mtrs (after deduction of 1,432 sq.mtrs from each land owner), being half portion of the 2,864 sq.mtrs h
A plaint can be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 if it fails to disclose a cause of action, especially when material facts are suppressed.
A suit challenging property ownership based on historical wills is barred by limitation if not filed within the statutory period, especially when the plaintiff is aware of prior legal challenges.
The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneou....
Point of law: Rejection of plaint - Clever or ingenious drafting cannot mask the Court for consideration of am application seeking rejection of the plaint when the suit is barred by limitation on the....
(1) Plaint which is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation, ought to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.(2) Rejection of plaint – While ....
The court affirmed that a plaint must show a valid cause of action to proceed, and suppression of material facts alone does not justify dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
The court held that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it does not disclose a cause of action, and the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.
A suit for declaration of title must seek possession to be valid; relief beyond pleadings is impermissible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
