LexKUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS. versus NANJUNDASWAMY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 153 : 2023 INSC 964 153 CASE DETAILS KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS. v. NANJUNDASWAMY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023) OCTOBER 31, 2023 [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.] HEADNOTES 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 – Plaintiff s and the Defendants no.1-3 were members of a joint family owning properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the plaint – Plaintiff s fi led 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 Plaintiff s did not deny the sale – Legality: Held: The true test is fi rst 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 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. 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 Plaintiff s 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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7413 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2015 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in CRP No.158 of 2010. Appearances: P V Yogeshwaran, M. A. Chinnasamy, Mrs. C. Rubavathi, C. Raghavendren, V. Senthil Kumar, Devendra Pratap Singh, Ashis Upadhay, Advs. for the Appellants. S. Nandakumar, Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Ashok Kumar Singh, Rajeev Gupta, Naresh Kumar, Advs. for the respondents. 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 fi rst relates to the true and correct application of the principle underlying 155 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-established principles informing Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and second, by rejecting the plaint in part, which is again contrary to the law on the subject. We have, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. We will fi rst indicate the necessary facts. 3. Mr. P V Yogeshwaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, assisted by Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, Mrs. C Rubavathi, Mr. C Raghavendren, Mr. V Senthil Kumar, Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh and Mr. Ashis Upadhay submitted that the Plaintiff s along with the Defendants No. 1 to 3 are members of a joint family owning properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the plain
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.