Order VII Rule 11 allows rejection of a plaint when its own pleadings disclose no enforceable right or cause of action.

A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on the basis of its own averments alone, without relying on the defendant's written statement or documents. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, the plaintiffs admitted that their father had been adopted by a registered deed in 1942, and the suit properties were pleaded to have been acquired after that adoption. The adoption severed his status in the natural family, so no enforceable coparcenary share or other right in the suit properties was disclosed. The plaint therefore disclosed no valid cause of action and was also treated as barred by limitation, so rejection was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of cause of action and because the suit was barred by law.

Analysis: Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 must be determined only from the averments in the plaint and not from the written statement or supporting documents of the defendant. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, the plaintiffs themselves admitted that their father had been adopted by registered deed in 1942. The properties in suit were pleaded to have been acquired after that adoption. The adoption had the legal effect of transplanting the adoptee into the adoptive family, with the consequence that he ceased to remain a coparcener in his natural family. In that situation, no enforceable right or share in the suit properties was disclosed. The plaint also did not disclose a valid cause of action, and the suit was further treated as barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The plaint was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d), and the dismissal of the appeal was justified.

---