Partition suit plaint rejection dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for joint family properties

Calcutta HC dismissed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint in a partition suit. The suit concerned joint family properties including immovable properties and companies registered under Companies Act 2013. Court held that existence of joint family fund, purchase of properties from such fund, and nucleus of fund are questions of fact to be established at trial. At preliminary stage, it cannot be concluded that suit lacks cause of action or is barred by Companies Act 2013 or Benami Transaction Prohibition Act 1988. The rejection application was found not tenable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for rejection of plaint u/s Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of absence of joint family nucleus, membership in defendant companies, Companies Act 2013 bar, and Benami Transaction Prohibition Act 1988.

Summary:
The suit involved a declaration of rights, partition by metes and bounds, and other prayers by the Plaintiff, who claimed joint family properties and businesses formed by Late Jaichand Lal Pasari for the Pasari family. Defendant No. 9 sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, citing lack of coparcenary, absence of Plaintiff's membership in defendant companies, Companies Act 2013 bar, and Benami Transaction Prohibition Act 1988.

The Plaintiff, in the Affidavit-in-Opposition, argued that the plaint's contentions were sacrosanct, disclosing a cause of action, and refuted the Defendant's claims. The Defendant contended that the suit lacked disclosure of joint family or nucleus, failed to prove membership in defendant companies, and was barred by Companies Act 2013. The Plaintiff's counsel argued that the suit was based on joint family corpus, within civil court jurisdiction, and not seeking remedies against the companies.

The Court noted the existence of joint family properties in the plaint, including immovable properties and companies under Companies Act 2013, raising questions on the partition of companies. It held that the suit's cause of action, joint fund existence, and properties' jointness were factual matters for trial, dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as premature. The Court scheduled further hearings for pending applications.

In conclusion, the Court found the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC untenable and dismissed it, emphasizing the need for evidence to establish factual aspects before applying relevant legal principles.

---