Plaint Must Disclose A Clear Right To Sue, Not An Illusion Or Mirage Of A Cause Of Action: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has upheld the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing that a plaint must disclose a clear right to sue and not merely an illusion or mirage of a cause of action.“The expression “Cause of Action” has been described to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order...
The Telangana High Court has upheld the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing that a plaint must disclose a clear right to sue and not merely an illusion or mirage of a cause of action.
“The expression “Cause of Action” has been described to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support the plaintiff's right to judgment. In other words, cause of action consists of a bundle of material facts which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed. For ascertaining cause of action, the averments made in the plaint must be read in its entirety - and not in isolation - and must be held to be correct. Simply put, the plaintiff must prove its case on the averments made in the plaint and further the relief claimed must have a real nexus with the cause of action pleaded. 17 MB,J & MGP,J CCCA.No.62 of 2024 The Plaint must disclose a clear Right to Sue – not an Illusion or Mirage of a Cause of Action,” the Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M. G. Priyadarsini noted.
The order was passed in a City Civil Court Appeal, filed against the order passed by the Trial Court, rejecting the plaint of the appellant herein, filed seeking the relief of partition.
The case revolved around a family dispute concerning a house property. The appellant, Bajranglal Agarwal, who was the youngest son, filed a suit against his mother (respondent No. 1) and his two elder brothers (respondents No. 2 and 3) for partition of the suit property and for a declaration that a Gift Settlement Deed executed by his mother in favor of his eldest brother was null and void. The appellant argued that the suit property, having been purchased by his father, was joint family property and that he, as a coparcener, was entitled to a one-third share.
He contended that his eldest brother had unduly influenced their mother to cancel the Will and execute the Gift Deed. The appellant sought partition of the property and cancellation of the Gift Deed.
The mother of the appellant, on the other hand, contended, that she had purchased the disputed suit property with her own funds, through a registered Sale Deed in 1988. After her husband's death in 1992, she solely managed the properties on her own and in August 2022.
It was argued, that the mother was the absolute owner of the suit property, and she was free to dispose of it in her desired manner.
In its reasoning, the court meticulously examined the statements made in the plaint. Firstly, it clarified, that as per section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 a woman is entitled to independently own property.
Secondly, that, the appellant had acknowledged his mother's absolute ownership of the property in several instances, including the Will Deed of August 16, 2022.
Thus, the court noted that the plaint contained contradictory statements, simultaneously accepting the mother's ownership and claiming the property as joint family property.
“Moreover, the appellant's complaint against the Deed of Cancellation and the registered Gift Settlement Deed is clearly contrary to the appellant's acceptance of the Will Deed dated 16.08.2022 where the respondent No.1 unequivocally declared her absolute ownership of the suit schedule property.”
The court emphasized that a cause of action must include all material facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support their right to judgment. It observed that the plaint in this case set up mutually destructive causes of action.
The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal, ITC Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali (Gajra) to reiterate, the principle that a plaint must disclose a clear right to sue, not just an illusion of a cause of action. It held that Order VII Rule 11 CPC could be invoked where a plaint is manifestly vexatious and meritless.
“In the present case, the plaintiff has filed a vexatious Suit where the causes of action are mutually-destructive and are extinguished by the time the plaint reaches the reliefs. This is an instance of a try-one'sluck plaint where the plaintiff has blown hot and cold and reversed his stand; from accepting the suit schedule property being a self-acquired property to questioning the right of the respondent No.1 to transfer the said property in favour of respondent No.2 by way of the Gift Settlement Deed. The plaint, in any event, lacks clarity, including in the articulation of what the plaintiff intends to say. The statements are vague to the extent of referring to the defendants as a group as opposed to the defendant No.1 (as the aggrieved party) who executed the Will Deed, the Cancellation of the Will Deed and the Gift Settlement Deed.”
While upholding the order of rejection of plaint, the Court also noted that the plaint lacked crucial prayers, such as a declaration that the suit property was joint family property, and a prayer to cancel the Deed of Cancellation of the Will, while seeking cancellation of the Gift Deed.
Case no.: CCCA.No.62 of 2024
Counsel for appellants: Vedula Srinivas, Senior Counsel
Counsel for respondents: Vedula Venkatramana, Senior Counsel, Manjhari S. Ganu, Dishit Bhattacharjee, Senior Counsel.