Case Details Kum. Geetha, D/O Late Krishna & Ors. vs Nanjundaswamy & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

31 October 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sudhanshu Dhulia

Citation

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 153 : 2023 INSC 964

Issue for consideration

Correct application of the principle underlying the rejection of plaints u/Or.VII, r.11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the facts of the case and the legality of rejection of a plaint in part. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.11 – Rejection of Plaints – Principle underlying – Application of – Plaintiffs and the Defendants no.1-3 were members of a joint family owning properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the plaint – Plaintiffs filed plaint for partition and separate possession – Defendants’ application for rejection of the plaint u/Or.VII, r.11, CPC was dismissed by Trial Court – High Court allowed the application in part, and rejected the Plaint with respect to Schedule-A property observing that the property described therein was sold way back in 1919 via a registered Sale Deed and the Plaintiffs did not deny the sale – Legality:

Headnote

Held: The true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true – Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application u/Or.VII,r.11 must fail – The plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action – In the present case, High Court committed error by examining the merits of the matter – It pre-judged the truth, legality and validity of the sale deed under which the Defendants No. 4 to 14 claim title – High Court could not have anticipated the truth of the averments by assuming that the alleged previous sale of the property is complete or that it has been acted upon – Approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application u/Or.VII Rule

11 – High Court erred in rejecting the plaint in part with respect to Schedule-A property and permitting the Plaintiffs to prosecute the case only with respect to Schedule-B property – This approach is impermissible – Impugned the judgment passed in revision petition set aside – Application u/Or.VII, r.11 dismissed, the suit even with respect to properties mentioned under Schedule A of the Plaint restored. [Paras 7, 10-13]

LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366: [2020]

5 SCR 694; Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd (2018) 11 SCC 780: [2017] 7 SCR 557; Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd (2019)

7 SCC 158: 2019 8 SCR 1058 – relied on.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In this appeal, we are called upon to decide two questions. The first relates to the true and correct application of the principle underlying the ‘rejection of plaints’ under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, to the facts of the case. The second question relates to the legality of rejection of a plaint in part. For the reasons to follow, we have held that the High Court has committed an error in passing the order impugned, on both counts. First, by misapplying the well-estab

View Subscription Plans →