Plaint scrutiny under Order VII Rule 11: plaint averments and declarations raised a triable cause, so rejection was unwarranted.

At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and the documents annexed with it, without considering the defence. The plaint here was not rejected because its pleadings, including alleged declarations by the defendant treating the properties as Hindu undivided family assets and the plaintiff's asserted rights on that basis, disclosed a triable cause of action. Questions of admission, estoppel, intention and the legal effect of those declarations required evidence and could not be decided summarily. The plaint therefore survived scrutiny and was held to disclose a cause of action requiring adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for disclosure of a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the plaint on its averments disclosed a triable cause regarding the nature of the suit properties as joint Hindu family properties.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto can be examined, and the defence cannot be looked into. The pleadings challenging the claim based solely on merger of the princely State and the rule of primogeniture did not by themselves justify rejection, because those questions were already covered by existing legal principles and were not the sole foundation of the suit. The plaint also pleaded that the defendant had himself declared the properties as Hindu undivided family properties before tax authorities, that the authorities had acted on those declarations, and that the plaintiff had asserted rights on that basis. Those averments, if proved, could support the relief claimed and raised questions of admission, estoppel, intention, and the legal effect of such declarations, all of which required evidence.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected, because it disclosed a cause of action requiring adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of Order VII Rule 11, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments, and where those averments disclose a triable cause of action supported by admissions or declarations relied upon by the plaintiff, the plaint cannot be rejected merely because the defendant disputes the underlying legal character of the claim.

---