2014 (3) TMI 1177 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for declaration and injunction by the Appellant - suit for dissolution of marriage in the City Civil Court at Calcutta which was transferred before the Family Court - HELD THAT - The High Court after perusing the facts and after considering the averments made in the plaint held that after deleting the name of Plaintiff No. 1 from the plaint it is clear from the averments that the plaint discloses no cause of action and accordingly held that Plaintiff No. 2 has no independent cause of action to proceed with the suit and the handing over of possession of the suit premises is nothing but to carry out an order passed by the High Court and thereby Plaintiff No. 2 being the son cannot have any cause of action in the matter. In view of the above the High Court reversed the order of the trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Being aggrieved this appeal has been filed on the ground that the said property is a trust property and that the Appellant has a right to reside there as one of the trustees and that he as a legal heir and son of the Respondent is entitled to reside in the suit property in terms of the trust deed. The High Court has correctly perused the plaint in its entirety and after deletion of the name of Plaintiff No. 1 from the said Title Suit held that the plaint discloses no cause of action after taking into account the fact that the very purpose of the suit has become infructuous in view of the order passed by the High Court to hand over the possession of the rooms in question. Therefore the foundation of the suit was not subsisting after the handing over of possession to the Defendant by Plaintiff No. 1 in terms of the order. Hence in these circumstances the High Court held that the plaint discloses no cause of action. There is no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the High Court.
2. Cause of action disclosure in the plaint after deletion of Plaintiff No. 1's name.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the High Court's order allowing the Respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint. The suit filed for declaration and injunction by the Appellant and Plaintiff No. 1 sought various reliefs related to the use of a flat in Kolkata. The High Court, after considering the facts, held that the plaint disclosed no cause of action post the possession handover as directed by a previous High Court order. The Appellant contended his right to reside in the property based on a trust deed. The High Court concluded that the plaint lacked cause of action, leading to the rejection of the plaint.

2. The central issue was whether the High Court's rejection of the plaint was justified post the removal of Plaintiff No. 1's name. The Appellant argued his right to occupy the premises as a trustee under a settlement deed. However, the Respondent highlighted that the cause of action ceased to exist after the possession handover following the High Court's order. The High Court, after thorough examination, found the plaint devoid of cause of action as the purpose of the suit was fulfilled by the possession transfer. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal due to the absence of merit.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the final decision.