TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1864
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il Suit No. 213 of 2007. The Trial Court has, by the impugned judgment recorded on application Exh.41 filed by the defendant No. 2, rejected the plaint under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. This being the First Appeal, the point for determination needs to be formulated by this Court. The point for determination, in the present Appeal is, whether the plaint of the present appellant needs to be rejected on the ground of, it not disclosing any cause of action against defendants No. 1 and 2, as held by the Trial Court, on the application moved by the defendant No. 2 invoking the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Heard learned advocates. 4. The material on recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suit land, in his favour, which was owned by the defendants No. 1 and 2, the said agreement was executed by defendant No. 3, on the basis of the power of attorney, claimed to have been in favour the defendant No. 3, which was never given by the defendants No. 1 and 2. It is submitted that thus the plaintiff could not and did not have any cause of action, qua the suit property, against the defendants No. 1 and 2. It is submitted that the rejection of plaint by the Trial Court, in this factual background, may not be entertained and this Appeal be dismissed. 6.2 Without prejudice to the above submissions on merits, learned advocate for the contesting respondent has further submitted that, though the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04. Thus, going by the averments in the plaint itself, the date on which the agreement to sell was allegedly signed by the defendant No. 3, there was no valid power with him, to sign / execute any such agreement. The donor had died in the year 1997. 7.4 The suit property was inherited by defendants No. 1 and 2, on the death of their mother in the year 1997 itself. The plaint contains averments in that regard as well. The conjoint reading of these averments makes it clear that, the suit property had stood transferred in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 in the year 1997 and the defendant No. 3, at no point of time was holding any power of attorney on behalf of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and thus, there could not be any cause of action by the....