In Civil Appeal No. 7413 of 2023 -SC- Partial rejection of plaint is not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, reiterates Supreme Court while setting aside Karnataka HC order
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia [31-10-2023]

Read Order: Kum. Geetha, D/O Late Krishna & Ors V. Nanjundaswamy & Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 3, 2023: In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has set aside a Karnataka High Court decision to partially reject a plaint in a partition suit, asserting that such partial rejection is not allowable under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The case involved plaintiffs and defendants, all members of a joint family who owned multiple properties. When the plaintiffs asked for partition, the defendants initially did not oppose it but instead asked the plaintiffs to wait until the revenue records were updated so that actual partition could be affected. Consequently, the plaintiffs presented a plaint for partition and separate possession.

Four years after the suit had been initiated, the defendants filed a petition seeking the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The Trial Court, at that time, dismissed the application, asserting that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. However, in a subsequent development, the Karnataka High Court passed an order where it noted that the property, as described in Schedule A of the plaint, had been sold in 1919 through a registered Sale Deed. The High Court's rationale was that the plaintiffs did not contest the sale but rather argued that there was subsequent re-conveyance of the property to the joint family, although revenue records were not updated accordingly. Considering these facts, the High Court partially allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, rejecting the plaintiffs' claims related to Schedule-A property.

The division bench, comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, emphasized that the initial evaluation of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC should focus solely on whether it discloses a cause of action. In this case, assuming the facts in the plaint to be true, the joint family properties appeared eligible for partition, subject to evidence presented during the trial.

The bench held that the High Court made an error by prematurely assessing the merits of the case. It effectively pre-judged the truth, legality, and validity of the sale deed under which Defendants No. 4 to 14 claimed ownerships. It was stated that the High Court should not have assumed the veracity of the assertions, particularly regarding the alleged previous sale of the property, or whether it had been acted upon. The bench ruled that this approach by the High Court was incorrect and went against the well-established principles of evaluating an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Consequently, the bench decided to set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, and restoring the suit, including the properties mentioned in Schedule A of the Plaint.

The bench noted another crucial point. They pointed out that in an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, it's not permissible to reject only a part of the plaint; it should be either accepted or rejected in its entirety.

Thus, the bench opined that the High Court erred by partially rejecting the plaint concerning Schedule-A property while allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with the case regarding Schedule-B property. Such a selective approach, when dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, is not permissible. Therefore, the court decided to set aside the High Court's judgment and order based on this issue as well.