Supreme Court overturns lower court decision; remands case for further proceedings on partition and sale deed issues.

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the lower court's decision to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The SC emphasized that the issues raised, including partition, res judicata, and the effect of sale deeds, involve mixed questions of fact and law that cannot be resolved at the preliminary stage. The case was remanded for further proceedings, allowing parties to present their contentions before the trial court. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Existence and effect of preliminary and final decrees.
3. Alleged severance of joint family status and partition by metes and bounds.
4. Maintainability of the suit for partition.
5. Consideration of res judicata and mixed questions of law and fact.
6. Relevance of sale deeds and third-party interests.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The appeal concerns the application of Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits the rejection of a plaint if it appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. The trial court and the High Court concluded that the suit was barred under Section 12 of the Code read with Order II, Rule 2, as no cause of action was disclosed in the suit.

2. Existence and Effect of Preliminary and Final Decrees:
A preliminary decree was passed by the trial court declaring a 2/9th share of the plaintiff, later amended to a 1/4th share. The final decree proceedings were initiated but not concluded, and the final decree was dismissed for default on 03.09.1974. The court noted that despite various orders and interlocutory proceedings, there had been no partition by metes and bounds.

3. Alleged Severance of Joint Family Status and Partition by Metes and Bounds:
The respondents argued that there had been a complete severance of the joint family status and division of properties by metes and bounds, resulting in independent possession by co-sharers. The appellants denied this, maintaining that the properties were not partitioned by metes and bounds. The court held that whether the properties were available for partition is a question of fact that cannot be determined under Order VII, Rule 11(d).

4. Maintainability of the Suit for Partition:
The appellants filed a suit for partition of the properties described in the earlier suit. The respondents filed an application for rejection of the plaint, which was allowed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The appellants argued that since no final decree was passed, the suit for partition was maintainable. The court opined that the effect of a partition suit not taken to its logical conclusion cannot be determined under Order VII, Rule 11(d).

5. Consideration of Res Judicata and Mixed Questions of Law and Fact:
The respondents contended that the suit was barred by res judicata. The court noted that res judicata involves mixed questions of law and fact, requiring examination of the plaint and other evidence, which cannot be determined at the stage of Order VII, Rule 11(d). The court emphasized that only the averments made in the plaint should be considered for invoking this provision.

6. Relevance of Sale Deeds and Third-Party Interests:
The respondents argued that sale deeds executed by co-sharers from 1954 to 1956 and third-party interests created therein barred the suit for partition. The court held that the effect of these sale deeds and third-party interests requires adjudication and cannot be determined under Order VII, Rule 11(d). The court also noted that whether the properties mentioned in the plaint are available for partition is a question of fact.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and emphasizing that the parties are at liberty to raise all contentions before the trial judge at appropriate stages. The court reiterated that the issues raised involve questions of fact and law that cannot be conclusively determined under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the appeal.

---