2022 (3) TMI 1462 - HC - Indian Laws

Adoption - whether the children of the adapted family can claim any right or share in the properties of the biological family of the father of the plaintiffs? - Rejection of plaint of the plaintiffs under Order- Rule-11(a) and (d) r/w Sec.151 of CPC - HELD THAT - It is well settled law that under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the plaint has to be rejected only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint without referring to the written statement filed by the defendant or any documents. In this case by reading the plaint averments it is clear that one Venkatappa and his wife Smt.Maremma had no issues and they adopted the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Bheemappa @ Bhima Reddy by way of a registered document styled as Dattu Sweekara Dastaveju vide document No.127/1942-43 which is registered before the Sub-Registrar s Office Ballari. The effect of the adoption is an adopted child shall be deemed to be child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption. The adoption has the effect of transferring the adopted boy from his natural family into the adoptive family. It confers upon the adoptee the same rights and privileges in the family of the adopter as the legitimate son. All the suit schedule properties have been purchased through the registered sale deed after 28.08.1942. Since all the suit schedule properties have been purchased after plaintiffs father went in adoption on 28.08.1942 it is clear that adoption under Mitakshara law has the effect of transplanting the adopted boy from his natural family into the family of his adoptive father. The father of the plaintiffs has no right title over the suit schedule property. After taking adoption of the father of the plaintiffs then only the plaintiffs are born hence the children of the adapted family cannot claim any right or share in the properties of the biological family of the father of the plaintiffs. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is also relevant to mention that when there is no cause of action arose to file the suit if the claim made in the suit is barred by any law under such circumstance the plaint of the plaintiffs shall have to be rejected under the provision of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC at any stage of the proceeding. By reading the entire plaint averments it does not give rise to any cause of action for the relief prayed - The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is correct. Though while giving the finding the trial Court has referred to the written statement and the documents produced by the defendant which the trial Court was not supposed to rely the appellate Court has the power to correct the same. By going through the averments of the plaint it is very clear that the suit is barred by law and the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the relief prayed. The appellate Court under Section 96 of CPC can exercise the power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adoption and Property Rights:
The appeal challenges the rejection of the plaint by the trial court under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC. The plaintiffs claimed a share in the suit schedule properties as sons and daughters of the deceased Bheemappa, who was adopted by Venkatappa and Smt. Maremma in 1942. The defendants contended that properties were purchased post-adoption, thus the plaintiffs had no rights. The court held that under Mitakshara law, adoption transfers the adopted child's rights to the adoptive family, ceasing rights in the birth family. Citing Lekh Ram v. M.T. Kishno, the court affirmed that the suit was legally barred due to the adoption.

2. Cause of Action and Legal Bar:
The court emphasized that a plaint should be rejected only based on its averments without reference to the defendant's statements or documents. The plaintiffs' claim lacked a cause of action as the properties were acquired post-adoption. Referring to T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, the court highlighted that vexatious or meritless claims should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The suit was deemed meritless and legally barred, justifying the rejection of the plaint.

3. Limitation and Corrective Action:
The court noted the absence of pleading regarding the suit's limitation period. With the father's death in 1996 and no prior challenge to alienation, the 2015 suit was time-barred. Although the trial court erred in considering the defendant's documents, the appellate court corrected the mistake. Upholding the trial court's decision, the appellate court invoked the "Right for the wrong reason" Doctrine to justify the rejection of the plaint.

4. Abuse of Process and Judicial Discretion:
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to prevent the abuse of legal processes and secure justice. By dismissing the appeal and confirming the trial court's order, the appellate court exercised its authority under Section 96 of CPC to uphold legal principles and prevent frivolous litigation.

In conclusion, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's decision to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC, based on the legal principles of adoption, cause of action, limitation, and judicial discretion.