LexMADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY versus SYED JALAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2017] 5 S.C. R. 294 MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY v. SYEDJALAL (Civil Appeal No. 5368of2017) APRIL 19, 2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or. VII, r.11 - Rejection of plaint - Held: The power u/Or. VII, r.11 can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit - The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only - If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and merit/ess in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power u/Or. VII r.11 - The said power however have to be strictly adhered to -. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. Or. VII, r.11 -Averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint - Even when, the a/legations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power u/Or. VII, r.11 can be exercised - If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation end at the earlier stage. Or. VIL r.11 - Suit for cancellation of sale deed on the ground that the suit property was wakf property and that defendants having purchased through a private person, sale deed did not convey any 294 MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY v. SYED JALAL 295 right, title or interest in favour of defendants - Application by A defendants including appellant u!Or. 7, r.11 for rejection of plaint - Wakf Tribunal allowed the application - High Court set aside the order of Wakf Board - On appeal, held: The Tribunal held that property in question was not notified in Official Gazette as a Wakf property, as alleged by the plaintiff - High Court though agreed with the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that the property was not notified as Wakf property in the Official Gazette, raised some doubt about the non-inclusion/inclusion of the property in the Survey Commissioners Report and proceeded to set aside the order B of the Tribunal - Therefore, there were concurrent findings of fact that property in question was not notified in Official Gazette as a Wakf property - Under s. 6, anyone aggrieved by such non-inclusion of the property in the list notified should raise the dispute within a period of one year from the date of publication of the Gazette notification - The plaintiff questioned the non-inclusion of the property in the list and the validity of the list notified in the official gazette dated 28.06.1962 after the lapse of about 50 years by filing the instant suit - Moreover, as per s.27 of 1954 Act (s.40 of 1995 Act), the Board may itself collect information regarding any property which it has reason to believe to be walif property and if any question arises whether a particular property is wakf property or not the Board after making such enquiry as it deems fit, decide the question - The Board did not exercise jurisdiction u/s.27 of 1954 Act and s.40 of 1995 Act, though 50 years elapsed from the date of the gazette notification - The suit is manifestly meritless and vexatious - So also the suit is barred by law - Wakf Tribunal was right in allowing application u/Or.VII, r.11 - Wakf Act, 1954 - ss.6 and 27 Wakf Act, 1995 - ss.6 and 40. Wakf - Similarity and difference between the 1954 Act and 1995 Act - Held: The provisions found in ss. 5 and 6 of Walif Act 1995 and Act of 1954 are almost akin to each other - Howeve1; the change brought in by the Parliament under 1995 Act is that, in the case of dispute regarding Wakfs, the aggrieved party needs to approach the Wakf Tribunal constituted uls.83 of the Walif Act 1995 and consequently the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is taken away - The overall view of the provisions contained in Wakf Act, 1954 and Wakf Act 1995 make it evident that even under 1954 Act, as in c D E F G H 296 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I 7) 5 S.C.R. 1995 Act, the Survey Com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.