2015 (2) TMI 1363 - SC - Indian Laws

Declaration of title and possession of immovable property - suit for specific performance - Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - HELD THAT - Rejection of the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power Under Order VII Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. In the present case, reading the plaint as a whole and proceeding on the basis that the averments made therein are correct, which is what the Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the said pleadings ex facie discloses that the suit is barred by limitation or is barred under any other provision of law. The claim of the Plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as pleaded will have to be accepted as correct. At the stage of consideration of the application Under Order VII Rule 11 the stand of the Defendants in the written statement would be altogether irrelevant. The order of the High Court dated 26th June, 2003 has to be reversed - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders passed by the High Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Examination of the causes of action in Original Suit Nos. 71 and 72 of 2002.
3. Analysis of whether the claims are affected by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1983.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the High Court's orders dated 26th June, 2003, allowing applications filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs contested these orders, seeking a reversal of the decision.

2. In Original Suit Nos. 71 and 72 of 2002, the Plaintiffs aimed for a declaration of title and possession. The Plaintiffs alleged trust in Defendants to purchase property in Hyderabad, which led to disputes regarding ownership and possession. The Plaintiffs claimed to have discovered discrepancies only upon visiting India in 1999, prompting legal actions.

3. The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is stringent and aims to terminate actions at the outset if they lack a cause of action or are legally barred. The Court emphasized that the plaint's averments must be considered as a whole, irrespective of the Defendants' stance. In this case, the Court found that the Plaintiffs' claims did not ex facie disclose limitations or legal bars, warranting a trial to adjudicate the claims.

4. The High Court raised an additional issue regarding the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1983, questioning if the claims fell under its purview. While one Civil Revision Petition favored the Plaintiffs on this issue, the other did not. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's view, stating that the suits were not about recovering benami properties but focused on title declaration and possession.

5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court's orders, directing the trial court to proceed with Original Suit Nos. 71 and 72 of 2002 on their merits promptly. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the Plaintiffs, emphasizing the need for a thorough trial to address the disputed claims comprehensively.