2021 (11) TMI 938 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses challenge to rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ownership issue to be decided at Trial.

Uma Versus G. Arunai Theepan, Rohisha, Aadhith Ganesh, The Sub Registrar

The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The Court held that the issue of ... Suit for mandatory injunction - execution of deed of settlement or gift - rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint does not have any cause of action - HELD THAT:- The 1st respondent has filed the suit for a direction to the petitioner to convey the suit property to and in favour of children, the respondents 2 & 3 by executing deed of settlement or gift and direct the Sub Registrar, SRO, Tambaram, 4th respondent herein not to receive and register any document of conveyance or encumbrance or charge pertaining to the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from encumbering or alienating the suit property. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is the contention of the 1st respondent that suit property was purchased for the benefit of the children, the respondents 2 and 3. It is purchased in the name of the petitioner which is a benami transaction. This issue whether the suit property was purchased for the benefits of respondents 2 and 3 by the 1st respondent or the petitioner has purchased the suit property from her own funds can be decided only after conclusion of Trial by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the petitioner and 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has made averments in the plaint that the petitioner is trying to alienate the suit property to defeat the benefits of respondents 2 and 3 and also stated that the 1st respondent issued notice dated 29.09.2014 to the 4th respondent not to receive and register any document presented by the petitioner. These averments discloses cause of action. It is well settled that while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., the Court has to take into account only the averments in the plaint and documents filed along with the plaint. The averments in the written statement, affidavit filed in support of the application under Order VII Rule 11 or documents relied on by the defendants in the written statement cannot be taken into account at the stage of considering I.A. filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Issues:1. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.2. Benami transaction and ownership of suit property.3. Cause of action and maintainability of the suit.Issue 1: Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.:The petitioner in this case filed a Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal order made in I.A. No. 846 of 2015 in O.S. No. 273 of 2014. The petitioner, as the 1st defendant in the suit, sought the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the grounds that the suit did not disclose any cause of action and was not maintainable. The petitioner argued that the allegations in the plaint were vexatious and lacked merit, thus urging the Court to exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and reject the plaint at the outset. However, the 1st respondent contended that the suit had a triable issue and was maintainable, as the cause of action was clearly stated in the plaint. The Court, after considering the averments in the plaint, dismissed the application, holding that the issue of ownership of the suit property could only be determined at Trial and not in the application stage.Issue 2: Benami transaction and ownership of suit property:The 1st respondent claimed that the suit property was purchased in the name of the petitioner for the benefit of their children, respondents 2 and 3, out of his own funds, constituting a benami transaction. The petitioner, on the other hand, argued that without seeking a declaration of title, the 1st respondent had no locus standi to maintain the suit. The Court noted that the issue of whether the property was purchased for the benefit of the children by the 1st respondent or by the petitioner herself could only be determined after Trial based on the evidence presented. The 1st respondent's averments regarding the petitioner's attempt to alienate the property and the notice issued to the Sub Registrar disclosed a cause of action, supporting the maintainability of the suit.Issue 3: Cause of action and maintainability of the suit:The 1st respondent's suit sought a direction for the petitioner to convey the property to their children, respondents 2 and 3, by executing a deed of settlement or gift, and to restrain the petitioner from alienating the property. The petitioner contested that the 1st respondent lacked the right to file the suit due to disputed ownership. However, the Court found that the 1st respondent had sufficiently disclosed the cause of action in the plaint, and the question of benami transaction could only be resolved after Trial. The Court emphasized that in considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., only the averments in the plaint should be taken into account, not the contents of the written statement or other documents. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, upholding the order of the learned Judge, as there was no error or irregularity warranting intervention.---