Judgment quashed, suit restored for lack of cause of action, allowing amendment to challenge consent decree.

The court quashed the judgment dismissing the suit for lack of cause of action, which was based on the conversion of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC into one under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The court allowed the amendment of the plaint to challenge a prior consent decree, emphasizing that the appellant was not a party to the compromise. The rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was found premature as the court should have assumed the averments in the plaint as correct. The suit was restored for further proceedings, highlighting the need for a trial to determine the merits of the appellant's claims.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the judgment dismissing the suit for want of cause of action.
2. Application for amendment of the plaint.
3. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
4. Examination of the amended plaint and accompanying documents.
5. Conversion of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC into an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the judgment dismissing the suit for want of cause of action:
The appellant challenged the judgment dated 23.09.2019, which dismissed her suit for partition, rendition of accounts, and permanent injunction due to lack of cause of action. The court treated the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as one under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

2. Application for amendment of the plaint:
The appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint, claiming she was unaware of a consent decree from a prior suit (CS(OS) 1175/2010) between her mother and uncle. She sought to include averments challenging the decree and an additional relief of declaration. The respondent contested this, arguing that the court could not entertain the amendment application once seized of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court allowed the amendment, noting that the appellant was not a party to the compromise in the previous suit.

3. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
The respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing the plaint lacked cause of action and material particulars about the creation of an HUF. The court examined the amended plaint, noting that the defense in the written statement could not be considered at this stage. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the plaint alone should be examined to determine if it discloses a cause of action.

4. Examination of the amended plaint and accompanying documents:
The amended plaint elaborated on the existence of an HUF, claiming the properties were HUF assets and detailing the family history. The appellant filed several documents, including correspondence, income tax returns, and declarations, supporting the HUF's existence. The court, however, scrutinized these documents and concluded they did not sufficiently demonstrate the properties were HUF assets, leading to the rejection of the plaint.

5. Conversion of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC into an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC:
The court's decision to treat the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as one under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and dismiss the suit was found untenable. The court should not have evaluated the merits of the appellant's claims or the authenticity of the documents at this stage. The averments in the plaint should have been assumed correct, and the suit should not have been dismissed without a trial. The court's skepticism about the HUF's existence and the properties' status was premature.

Conclusion:
The impugned judgment allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by treating it as one under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was quashed. The suit was restored to its original position for further proceedings. The court emphasized that the averments in the plaint should be taken as correct at this stage, and the suit should proceed to trial to determine the merits of the appellant's claims.

---