2010 (10) TMI 1163 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of the suit u/s Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint.
3. Allegations of fraud and collusion without material particulars.
4. Applicability of statutory provisions and case law to the averments in the plaint.

Summary:

1. Dismissal of the suit u/s Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The appeal arises from the judgment dated 03.04.2006, dismissing the suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the Sale Deeds for land at Survey Nos. 436/1 and 436/2 were bogus and unauthorized, and prayed for cancellation of the documents and possession of the property. The defendants filed applications for dismissal of the suit, contending that the plaintiff, the real brother of defendant No. 1, had executed a Power of Attorney in favor of defendant No. 1, based on which the Sale Deeds were executed.

2. Non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint:
The court emphasized that for considering a case under Order VII, Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are to be considered. It was found that the plaint did not disclose a valid cause of action. The plaintiff admitted the execution of the Power of Attorney and the Sale Deeds. The court noted that the Power of Attorney expressly provided the power to sell the property, and there was no averment that it was canceled before the execution of the Sale Deeds. The court held that the absence of material facts and particulars regarding the alleged fraud or collusion meant the plaint did not disclose a cause of action.

3. Allegations of fraud and collusion without material particulars:
The court found that the plaintiff's allegations of fraud and collusion were not supported by material particulars. The plaint lacked details on how the transactions were fraudulent or collusive. The court referred to Order VI, Rules 2 and 4, which require pleadings to state material facts and particulars in cases of fraud or collusion. The court concluded that the mere use of the words "fraud" and "collusion" without details did not constitute a valid cause of action.

4. Applicability of statutory provisions and case law to the averments in the plaint:
The court referred to various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing that clever drafting to create an illusion of a cause of action is not permissible. The court reiterated that if the averments in the plaint are contrary to statutory law or case law, they cannot be considered as disclosing a cause of action. The court also noted that the absence of a prayer for the cancellation of the Power of Attorney further weakened the plaintiff's case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Trial Court's order for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the plaint did not disclose any valid cause of action for the reliefs prayed. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.