9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of alienations made by the father and subsequent suit for declaration and possession. 2. Court's rejection of the plaint and subsequent appeal. 3. Partial rejection of the plaint and the legality of such action. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved five alienations made by the father, including those by the Official Receiver, leading to a suit for declaration and possession by the sons. The trial court held the alienations void, and the sons filed a petition for review which was dismissed. The Senior Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal against the rejection of the plaint, remanding the case for trial. Issue 2: The appellant, one of the vendees, challenged the Senior Subordinate Judge's order through an appeal. The question arose whether a second appeal lies from an order under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judge noted that a revision would be possible regardless, and the rejection of the plaint was ultimately deemed incorrect, leading to the allowance of the appeal. Issue 3: A critical aspect of the appeal was the legality of a partial rejection of the plaint. The appellant argued that a plaint must be rejected as a whole, citing legal precedents. The respondent contended that the case involved multiple suits combined into one, justifying the partial rejection. However, the judge concluded that the rejection should have been in its entirety, as it was one plaint despite multiple causes of action, ultimately allowing the appeal and ordering accordingly. In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Senior Subordinate Judge's order, emphasizing that the rejection of a plaint should be as a whole and not in parts. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings.
|
